The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased 1.0 Ton AC machine on 25.5.2012 at Rs.37,000/- under Cash Memo no. 205 from Gopal Radio Clinic, i.e Op no.1. Initially some problem arose and Op no.1 cured that problem . On 4.7.2015 the complainant had to call the technician again and fault of compressor was found out. Warranty period was five years. Inspite of request Gopal Radio clinic does not change the compressor. Again on 4.5.2016 the complainant informed the Service centre when the A/C machine stopped cooling . The OP sent one technician namely Debasish Bera who also suggested to change the compressor but the oP no.1 did not make any effective steps to replace the compressor for which the A/c machine became non functional. Service memo tax receipt invoice have been filed praying relief when the Op no.1 did not take any effective action to alleviate sufferings of the complainant.
The Op no.1 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The OP no.1 states that the complainant came to the shop on 23.5.2015 and A/c machine was paid service in consideration Rs.700/- .Save and except on that day the complainant did not come to OP no.1. It is also
stated by the complainant that due to manufacturing defect Op no.2 is liable. The complainant made Op no.1 as necessary party falsely. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitle to get any relief as prayed for.
The Op no.2 filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The oP no.2 states that last part of June, 2015 some problems arose in the subject unit . The technician of the oP no.2 visited the complainant to check the subject unit and the technician replaced the compressor free of cost. Out of total cost Rs.9385/- for compressor replacement the complainant was required to pay only gas charging and service charge Rs.2560/- but complainant gave Rs.2500/- . It is also stated that the Op no.2 during the term of warranty is only liable to repair or replace the defective parts and not replaced the complete goods unit that has been claimed by the complainant. The Op no.2 laid emphasis on the warranty terms and conditions of the company. It is also within three years from the date of purchase there was no problem. The total allegation of the complainant is false.
Complainant filed photo copies of Tax invoice dated 25.5.12 , photocopy of document supplied by MEHO HCP Air Systems Pvt. Ltd. in four copies , Photo copy of receipt of Rs.450/- and other documents. Complainant also filed Evidence in
chief and Written Notes of Arguments. Ops are on the other hand filed Evidence in chief, Written version and Written Notes of argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
The complainant filed Evidence in chief and it appears from the Evidence in chief regarding the allegation which has been shown in the complaint. OP no.1 virtually admitted the contentions of the complainant and he shifted the liability upon the Op no.1 who is the manufacturer. Op no.2 has taken the all responsibilities on his shoulder by changing the compressor. It is positive case of the Op no.2 is that the compressor was defective and that was changed. But Op repeatedly states that they are liable to repair and replace the defective parts as per warranty period. Warranty period laid down there in i.e. five years. The
mischief alleged by the complainant took place within three years. So it cannot be denied that there was defect in the machine since its production.
In this respect , if the plea of the Op no.2 that they are liable as per warranty period to replace and repair the defective parts then it is crystal clear that such manufacturers of other essential goods also would take this plea and they will do business with defective machine with full knowledge of the same. Because they would take the plea of change the defective parts if it arose. In our country every consumers are not so vigilant about their rights laid down in Section 6 of the Consumer Protection Act. Insptie of having defect in the consumer goods they bear with many problems and with this plea the manufacturer gets some advantage. Such plea cannot be allowed because it will be a unfair trade practice. In this case the statement of Op no.1 and Op no.2 and other papers shows that they are habituated in unfair trade practice and have delivered the product in the market without any due care and attention and without any protection and checking of the product.
So, from the records it appears that there is trustworthiness in the allegation of complainant admitted by the oP no.1 and 2. Accordingly, material
convinced us to hold that complainant is succeed to prove his and he is entitled to get relief as per Section 14(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence it is –
ORDERED
That the CC no. 71 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest. Op no.1 and Op no.2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the Carrier 1.5 Ton AC being Model no.Kurve 1.5 ton with a new same model of same company of 1.5 ton to the complainant. The Op no.1 and Opno.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000/-to the complainant towards compensation . The Op no.1 and 2 are also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
The Ops are directed to comply the above order within 45 days by replacing the A/C machine with a new one as mentioned above and by issuing A/c payee cheque in favour of the complainant for payment of compensation and litigation cost, in case of failing to comply the above order within 45 days Rs.300/- per day shall be imposed upon the Ops till recoveries of all amount and that amount would be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
