DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 15/03/2021
CC/49/2021
Joshi.M.F
S/o Francis.M.A
Mukkath House, Pallippuram (P.O)
Kallikkad, Palakkad - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
The Manager
Jamal Sales Corporation, Court Road
Palakkad – 678 001 - Opposite party
(By Adv. T.N.Sabeesh)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
Complainant purchased an Air Conditioner of brand ‘DAIKIN’ from the opposite party on 08/03/2020. Bajaj Finance had financed him for the purchase. He paid Rs. 13,500/- on that day and agreed to pay the balance in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 2,028/- for 12 months and paid the balance amount later. On the date of purchase itself, the opposite party promised to do free service of the Air Conditioner twice in a year. But after 6 months, when the complainant approached the opposite party, they were not ready to provide service. They informed him that the service technician will contact; but nothing happened. This is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So he filed this complaint claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the opposite party including compensation for the mental agony and other inconveniences suffered by him and cost of the litigation.
2. On receipt of notice from this Commission, opposite party appeared and vakalath was filed on behalf of them. Later opposite party submitted that the matter is almost settled. Then it was posted for settlement. Complainant was not amenable to the offer of service made by the opposite party. Opposite party filed version along with application IA/347/22 to accept version and it was dismissed. After that opposite party filed RA/122/22 to review the order in the above IA and it was dismissed for the reason that the Commission has no authority to extend the period provided by statute for filing version. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 & A2 marked. Opposite party filed IA/129/23 to re-open evidence and it was dismissed. Heard the complainant.
3. Complainant produced the ‘Tax Invoice’ dated 08/03/2020 issued by the opposite party for the purchase of ‘DAIKIN’ Air Conditioner for an amount of Rs. 36,500/- Ext. A2 is the Warranty card issued by the opposite party along with Invoice. In the warranty card under the heading 6.1 Preventive Maintenance of Product, it is written as
6.1.1 Preventive maintenance check up will be carried out two times in a period of 12 months from the date of invoice on request of the user, which will include
6.1.2 General cleaning and brushing.
6.1.3 General internal check up.
6.1.4 Cleaning of air filter.
6.1.5 Lubrication of moving parts.
6.1.6 Checking of electrical contacts.
4. So the complainant is entitled to free service of Air Conditioner twice in year during the warranty period as per Ext. A2. Here as per the complainant’s contention, after using the Air Conditioner for 6 months, he approached and requested for service. Eventhough they promised to send technician to do service, they failed to comply with it.
5. Since the opposite party failed to file version within the statutory period, proceedings were made ex-parte. The complainant has made out a prima facie case that the opposite party failed to provide free service even after his repeated requests and there is deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for their deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 7,500/- for their deficiency in service, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconveniences suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Tax Invoice No: P002744 dated 08/03/2020.
Ext. A2: Warranty card.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
