Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

27/2011

Muruganandam.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New Cool Home - Opp.Party(s)

R.Baskar

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 20.01.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 16.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.27/2011

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

Mr. N. Muruganandam,

S/o. Mr. M. Nithiyanandam,

No.32/12, Mathialagan Street,

Nehru Nagar,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                    

 

      ..Versus..

 

1. The New Cool Home,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.36/47, 2^nd Street,

Anjugam Nagar,

Jafferkhanpet,

Chennai – 600 083.  

 

2. Rathna Cools Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.36/1, Rajabather Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

3. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.85/1, NSC Towers,

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. R. Baskar & another

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 3 :  M/s. V.V. Giridhar

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party        :  Exparte

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service to replace the compressor during guarantee period in an inordinate delay of two and a half months in summer and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pain with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased one Ton capacity Split Air Conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party on 08.05.2007.  Further the complainant submits that while purchasing the Air Conditioner, the opposite party promised to prove the best service with a guarantee for 5 years on the compressor and stabiliser. Further the complainant submits that on 27.04.2010, all of a sudden, the Air Conditioner was not working during the summer caused great discomfort. Immediately, the complainant informed to the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party gave the phone number of the 1^st opposite party and stated that they have service contract with the 3^rd opposite party.  Even after repeated calls after 15 days, the 1^st opposite party sent a serviceman to check the Air Conditioner and found out that the compressor got struck off and it should be replaced.  Hence a new compressor was installed.    Further the complainant submits that the new compressor was fixed on 06.07.2010 also not working from the 2^nd day onwards.  Thereby, the complainant was compelled to call the 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties for due service.  But the opposite parties has not responded.   Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:17.08.2010 for such deficiency in service and claiming for replacement of compressor and stabiliser.  But the opposite parties has not chosen to send any reply.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1  & 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 3 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 3 state that the 3^rd opposite party do not know anything about the purchase of the alleged split Air Conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party.  The complaint dated:27.04.2010 filed by the complainant was duly attended.   Due gas was filled in the compressor and service done.  The complainant expressed utter displeasure and gave a post-dated cheque for Rs.2,494/- dated:05.09.2010 was received with objections.  The 3^rd opposite party never assured for any replacement.  There is no deficiency in service and the complainant has not paid the charges for the service done.  The cheque issued by the complainant also has not been presented.  This complaint is filed with false claims suppressing the material facts only for unjust enrichment.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the 2^nd opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party is set Exparte.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 3 is filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 3.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service to replace the compressor as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to sum of Rs.20,000/-  towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The complainant filed his written arguments.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint and contended that he purchased one Ton capacity Split Air Conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party on 08.05.2007 as per Ex.A1.  Further the contention of the complainant is that while purchasing the Air Conditioner, the opposite party promised the best service with a guarantee for 5 years on the compressor and stabiliser.  But the complainant has not produced any   record.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on 27.04.2010, all of a sudden, the Air Conditioner was not working during the summer caused great discomfort.  Immediately, the complainant informed to the 2^nd opposite party who in turn, informing the 1^st opposite party for service by the 3^rd opposite party.  Even after repeated calls after 15 days, the 1^st opposite party sent a serviceman to check the Air Conditioner and found out that the compressor got struck off and it should be replaced.  Hence a new compressor was installed.  Ex.A3 is the Service Receipt.  Ex.A4 is the receipts showing the service related to dismantling of outer unit etc.  Further the complainant contended that the new compressor was fixed on 06.07.2010 also not working from the 2^nd day onwards.  Thereby, the complainant was compelled to call the 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties for due service.   But they turned hostile.  The post-dated cheque issued for a sum of Rs.2,494/- received by the opposite party also has not been presented for collection.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice for such deficiency in service and claiming for replacement of compressor and stabiliser.  But on a careful perusal of records, there is no expert opinion in this case to prove that the replaced compressor also is in default.  Equally, there is no pleadings and proof with regard to the stabilizer.  

7.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 3 is that the 3^rd opposite party do not know anything about the purchase of the alleged split Air Conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party.  The complaint dated:27.04.2010 filed by the complainant was duly attended.   Due gas was filled in the compressor and service done.  The complainant expressed utter displeasure and gave a post-dated cheque for Rs.2,494/- dated:05.09.2010 was received with objections.  The 3^rd opposite party never assured for any replacement.  There is no deficiency in service and the complainant has not paid the charges for the service done.  The cheque issued by the complainant also has not been presented.  This complaint is filed with false claims suppressing the material facts only for unjust enrichment.  But it is proved from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Air Conditioner is in fault due to the failure of compressor.   Hence this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall rectify the defects in the compressor within one month, failing which, to refund the cost price of  the compressor and shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defects in the complaint mentioned Air Conditioner compressor at free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which to refund the cost price of the said Air Conditioner compressor and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	08.05.2007	Copy of cash receipt for purchase of Air Conditioner
Ex.A2	08.05.2007	Copy of work order for installation
Ex.A3	27.05.2010	Copy of cash receipt for service
Ex.A4	28.05.2010	Copy of report by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A5	06.07.2010	Copy of cash receipt by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	17.08.2010	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT