Date of filing: 28/06/2016                                                               Date of Final Order: 27/10/2016

         The instant case has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of Rs. 3.5 Lacs for cost of Samsung Inverter Technology AC and harassment cost by replacing defective AC.

       The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased Samsung Inverter Technology AC on 26/4/2014 from Basak Electronic, Berhampore for Rs 45000/- and installation fee of Rs. 5774/-. Problem cropped up after a few days from installation and Ac was reinstalled at a different place for technical problem in installation. Thereafter, a new problem cropped up and lodged complain vide no. 4201898261 on 27/9/2015 with Samsung customer care. They sent service Engineer from OP no.1 – Protima Infotech, local service centre, they opened the machine but could not trace out the actual problem and in this way they came 6/7 times and tried forcible to open Indoor Unit as a result fibre locks were broken and ultimately disclosed that in there service centre there is no trained Engineer for new Inverter Technology. But they advised to change five PCB alongwith filling up Gas. The complainant requested the manager to bring trained Engineer from Kolkata and he will bear the conveyance cost but they did not pay any heed to it and compelled them to deposit advance of Rs. 5000/- for the purpose. Thereafter, as per instruction of manager AC was stated changing five PCB and filling up Gas and for that the complainant paid Rs 14032/-.     The service  of AC for initial three months was good and since then again problem cropped up and then on 6/5/2016 same problem cropped up and lodged complain on 07/5/2016  vide complain no.4213734996. They sent people from Berhampore service center and opened the Indoor and outdoor unit and advised that again the complainant is to change all the PCB. They have failed to detect the actual problem and the same problem cropped up within three weeks after repair by spending Rs. 14032/-, the complainant is not in a position   to bear the same. They opened the AC and left keeping the machine in such open condition and then complainant took steps for filing complaint and having drop letter from office of the  CA & FBP, Murshidabad, and as per their direction waiting upto 20/6/2016 the complainant file the instant complaint. Hence the instant complaint case.

                                                                    Decision with Reasons

In this case both the OPs have not turned up inspite of service of notice and for that this case has been taken up ex parte against both the OPs.

            The OP No.1 is the local service centre who rendered service against payment made by the complainant and OP No. 2 is the manufacturer of the alleged defective AC purchased by the complainant.

            To prove the case ex parte the complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit alongwith the relevant documents in support of his case.

            The main case of the complainant is that he purchased Samsung Inverter Technology AC, problem cropped up from the very beginning and the service Engineer of Op No.1 Service Centre failed to detect the problem, they came 6/7 times to solve the problem and for attempt to open and close the Unit the fibre locks were broken and disclosed that there is no trained Engineer for the new Inverter Technology in their service centre.

            From the documents filed as well as from the evidence of the complainant on affidavit it is clear that the complainant purchased Samsung Inverter Technology AC on 26.04.2014 for Rs.45000/- and installation charge of Rs.5774/- was paid and first complaint lodged on 27.09.2015 and for repairing the same the complainant advanced Rs.5000/-to OP No. 1 on 03.11.2015 and paid Rs.14032/- on 11.04.2016 towards cost of repair charge on 30.03.2016.

            Again, same problem cropped up after three weeks of such repair.

            When, complain was lodged on 06.05.2016 and on 07.05.2016 Op No. 1 sent his men who opened the machine and advised that again all PCBs were to be changed. They opened the machine and left keeping open.

            At that time trained Engineer being not sent the complainant felt that they failed to detect the actual problem and within three weeks after repair spending Rs.14032/- same problems were cropped up, the complainant was unable to spend the same and took steps for relief through this Forum.

            Heard the argument of the complainant ex parte.

            Considering the materials on record as discussed above it is clear that within one month after repair the same problem has been cropped up and that being so, we are of the view that both the OPs cannot avoid liability to get the machine in running condition after further repair free of cost.

            It is true in this case that there is no case for replacement of the defective machine by new machine.

            Further, in case of replacement by new machine, the settled principle is that the manufacturing defect is to be established.

            In this case there is no such case as well as material as to manufacturing defect and for that there is no scope to replace by new machine though the OPs have failed to detect the cause of the problem by sending any trained Engineer as to new Invertor Technology AC.

            The complainant has filed a Tax Invoice amounting to Rs.34200/- dated 15.05.2016 as to purchase of a new AC machine from Mondal Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and has advanced argument that he has to purchase the same being the defective AC machine being left open by the men of OP No.1.

            The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.3.5 Lakh but has failed to justify the same by adducing cogent evidence.

            Considering the above discussions, we find that both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to get the machine repaired and make it in a running condition free of cost and to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- for harassment.

            On the basis of above discussions, we find that the complainant will get relief in part ex parte.

            Hence,

                                                                                 Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 24/2016 be and the same is allowed in part ex parte.

            The complainant is entitled to get the Samsung Inverter Technology AC vehicle in a running condition free of cost and to get compensation of Rs. 5000/- for harassment.

            The OPs are jointly and severally liable to get the machine repaired and make it in a running condition free of cost and to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- for harassment.

The OP No.1 is directed to get the impugned AC machine of the complainant repaired by sending trained Engineer and make it in a running condition free of cost and to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order and in default the OP is to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.  

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.