CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of May 2013
Present: Smt. Seena.H.President,
: Smt Preetha.G.Nair, Member,
Date of filing :21/12/12
C.C.229/12
Santhosh Kumar,
S/o.Chamiyar,
Kattukode, : Complainant
Vadakkencherry.(P.O)
Palakkad.
Vs
1.The Managing Director,
Future Value,
Retail Ltd, Tower C, 8th Floor, 247 park,
L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli(West),
Mumbai- 400083, : Opposite Parties
Maharashtra – India.
2.The Manager,Big Bazaar, City Centre,
. English Church Road, Palakkad – 14,
Kerala State.
O R D E R
By.Smt. PREETHA G.NAIR,MEMBER.
The complainant purchased a Koryo split type Air Conditioner from the 2nd opposite party on 9/06/12. On purchase of the air conditioner, user' s manual, installation manual/warranty card were issued to the complainant in his name. The air conditioner has a comprehensive warranty of one year and thecompressor which is a component of the air conditioner has a warranty of five year according to the term and conditions of the warranty. On 27/9/12 the complainant found the air conditioner to be not functioning. Then the complainant intimated the fact to 2nd opposite party and an authorized service agent was sent to check and rectify the defect. The service agent after inspection of the air conditioner told the complainant that the compressor of the air conditioner was defective and it had to be replaced. This fact was again intimated to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant. But the 2nd opposite party did not take any steps to replace the compressor. Then the complainant sent lawyer notice to both opposite parties. Even after receiving the notice neither opposite parties took any steps to replace the compressor and solve the grievance. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to
Repair the unit by replacing the compressor of the air conditioner and
pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on for deficiency in service and
Pay the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The complainant is not maintainable. The complainant is put to strict proof regarding the purchase of air conditioner from 2nd opposite party. The complainant has never intimated 2nd opposite party about the non-functioning of the Air conditioner as alleged in the complaint. The 2nd opposite party has not sent any technicians either to install the alleged AC unit or to repair the unit at the premises of complainant at any point of time. The opposite parties admit that they are the dealers of Koryo Air Conditioners. When a customer purchases AC unit, an authorized technician from the notified service centers of Koryo will install the unit at the customer's premises and any complaints will also be attended by authorized technicians of the service centers. A warranty will also be issued by the Koryo company at the time of purchase. The main condition of the warranty is that the installation and repairs if any has to be done by Koryo authorised technicians alone. The 2nd opposite party never sold the AC unit to the complainant . Any unauthorized installation or repairs will make the warranty invalid. The complainant has to approach the authorized service centers and did not the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed their affidavit Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant. Complainant and opposite party examined as PW1 and DW1. Matter heard. Both parties filed argument notes.
Issues to be considered are:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
If so, what is the relief and cost?
ISSUE I & II .
We perused relevant documents on record.
According to the opposite parties the 2nd opposite party never sold the alleged AC unit to the complainant and he had never approached then to get it repaired. In Ext.A1 & Ext.A2 the original user's manual and installation manual, no where stated the name of complainant. In Ext.A1 the last page of user's manual shown the warranty card mentioned that date of purchase 9/06/12 and on the place of customers signature, 2nd opposite party's seal given.
At the time of cross examination DW1 deposed that warranty card fill sN¿p-¶-Xp0 seal sN¿p-¶-Xp0 staff ആണ് . Customer tവണ്ട F¶p]dRm  fill sചയ്യാറില്ല. customerEbMrs¸SpIbmsW¦n purchaser szJ t]cv mention sN¿pw- In short at the time of purchase of goods strictly not mentioned the name of customer in the warranty card by opposite parties. The warranty card, user's manual and installation manual of air conditioner are in the custody of complainant. Moreover DW1 deposed that the seal of 2nd opposite party given in the warranty card. So the complainant purchased the air conditioner from 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. At the time of examination of complainant deposed that no documents except Ext.A1 to A5, produced to show that he has purchased the Air Conditioner. Ext.A4 & A5 documents issued by the 2nd opposite party admitted by DW1. But there was nothing seen in Ex .A4 and A5. No condradictory evidence produced by opposite parties DW1 deposed that Ext.A4 , A5 and A6 receipts issued by the 2nd opposite party . Further DW1 deposed that at the time of purchase of goods, the details of purchasers was mentioned in delivery register and sales register. But the opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that the complainant has not purchased the air conditioner on 9/6/12. Ext A4 & A5 are the two blank bills issued by the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A6 series bills issued by the 2nd opposite party. At the time of examination DW1 deposed that now the bills are not completely seen. At the time of issuing the bill it seen clearly. Admittedly the bills issued by the 2nd opposite party are not clearly seen day after day. But the opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that on 9/6/12 they had not sold the air conditioner to the complainant.
According to the complainant on 27/09/12 the air conditioner was found to be non functioning and the fact was intimated to 2nd opposite party. After verification the service agent of opposite party informed to the complainant that the compressor of the AC has to be replaced. As per the waranty conditions compressor had 5 years warranty. In Ext.A1 below of the warranty card Satheesh, with mobile number mentioned. DW1 deposed that the technician named Satheesh Kumar working in the service center. According to the opposite parties 7th condition of warranty is that the warranty is not applicable if installation repair work is carries out by persons/agency other than authorized the company. According to the complainant the service agent was sent by 2nd opposite party, has attended the air conditioner and informed that compressor was defective.The complainant has not produced expert evidence to prove the defects of the air conditioner. The main allegation of opposite parties that they had not sold the air conditioner to the complainant. On the available evidence it is proved that the complainant has purchased the air conditioner from 2nd opposite party.
During the period of warranty the opposite pareties had not repaired/ replaced the defects. The opposite parties had not produced evidence to show that their service technician had not checked the air conditioner. The opposite parties had not sent reply notice to complainant. PW1 deposed that the technician of 2nd opposite party installed the air conditioner and the service centre of Koryo company was not known to him. Even after receiving the legal notice issued by the complainant, the opposite parties had not intimated to him to approach the service center. According to the complainant the service technician of 2nd opposite party installed the air conditioner and at the time of not working he informed them. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties . No expert evidence produced by the complainant to show the defects of air conditioner. So we cannot considered the prayer to repair the unit by replacing the compressor. The opposite parties had not given proper service to the complainant within the warranty period.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result, complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-( ten thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.1000/-(thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of Order, failing which the whole amount shall be carry interest 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of May, 2013.
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
