Order No. 19 dt. 16/11/2017
The fact of the case according to the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one Hitachi make split A.C.Machine 1.5ton model no.RAS 518 ETD on 07.03.2014 against consideration price of Rs.39,600/-from M/s Great Eastern Trading Company, 23/13 Bag Station Road, Kanchrapara, North 24 Parganas. After a week the AC machine was installed on 14.03.2014 at the house of the complainant at B-7/13, Kalyani, Nadia with installation cost of Rs.2,700/- against receipt no. KOL-2 22035. After installation of the AC machine it had started showing problems and that was informed by the complainant to the customer care center. In response to the complainant the technician of the AC machine visited the house of the complainant, attempted to repair the A C Machine but failed. The o.ps neither made any repair job nor left any advice to handle the situation but expressed their hollow assurance. Complainant wrote a letter to o.p on 20.08.2014 praying for replacement of the AC machine. Complainant is a senior citizen he had purchased it for his necessity. Having left no other alternative complainant compelled to purchase another AC Machine for his use on 20.05.2014 in the name of his daughter from Great Eastern Appliances Pvt Ltd., 15B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020. Subsequently on 15.01.2015 complainant issued a legal notice asking to replace the AC machine against the non-functioning of the AC Machine purchased by him or to refund the cost of the AC with installation charges along with interest of 12%p.a. but the o.p. remained silent once again to the legal notice. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint praying for refund of Rs.42,300/- with interest @12% p.a. with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and for litigationcost of Rs.5,000/-.
PR and TR show services of notice to the o.p.nos. 1 to 3 but none of the ops appeared and took part in the proceedings of the case. Hence the case was fixed ex-parte against the all the tree o.ps.
On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant the following points are to be decided:-
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s ?
- Whether there was any manufacturing defect in the AC machine?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of fact.
In order to prove the case the complainant sworn an affidavit of evidence in support of the contention of the complaint and filed documents in support of his claim excluding the job sheets, if any, issued by the personnel of the ops . On the basis of the said evidences on record and since no challenge has been made by o.ps to controvert the demand of the complainant we, therefore, have no other alternative but to analyze the submission of the complainant.
Considering the submissions of the complainant and documents on record it is an admitted fact that complainant purchased a Hitachi make 1.5 ton A.C. Machineon 07.03.2014 against consideration price of Rs.39,600/-from M/s Great Eastern Trading Company and it was installed on 14.03.2014 with installation cost of Rs.2,700/- against receipt. After installation of the AC machine it had started showing problems and that was informed by the complainant to the customer care center. In response to the complainant the technician of the AC machine attended it, attempted to repair it but failed. The o.ps thereafter did nothing but recitation of fake assurance. Complainant wrote a letter in details aboutthe then condition of the machine to the o.p on 20.08.2014 and asked for replacement of the AC machine. Complainant is a senior citizen he had purchased it for his necessity. Finding no immediate solution complainant purchased another A C machinefor their use.
The harassment of the complainant and disturbance in the AC machines from the very beginning would suffice enough to ask for replacement of the AC machine with new one or to claim for refund of the money blocked in the defunct machine. But op on the other hand did nothing for repair or replacement. Being aggrieved complainant had sent an ultimatum by sending a legal notice. But the op-company remained unmoved. The awkward developed, thus, had probably made the complainant irritant enough in misconceiving a complaint petition without maneuvering the petition with necessary inputs and equipment.
But from the trouble so far created by the AC machine since its installation, it cannot be inferred that there is manufacturing defect in the said AC machine. Moreover, complainant did not seek expert opinion regarding determination of defect in the AC machine in question. Complainant prayed for replacement of the set for which complainant would have to take step to prove the set a defective one. But any such initiative in this respect had not, at all, been undertaken by the complainant. Even there is no proof that the machine has not been functioning at all. Complainant had not collected any job sheet or charge sheet from which it would be proved that complainant had taken initiative for repairing of the A C Machine. In the pleading of the complaint petition he did not mention the complaint number as a record of an attempt of repairing of the machine. Even during the proceeding of the case complainant did not submit any prayer to appoint commission for on the spot verification of the status of the AC Machine in question.
With the above points in view we hold that there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps and the defect in the A C Machine, if any, has not tried to be proved. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. 178 of 2015 is dismissed ex-parte without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
