Order No. 4

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not provide him the service of maintenance of Air Condition Machine through AMC till filing of this complaint inspite of several request.

The brief fact of the case of the complaint is that the maintenance of the Air Conditioner units is not cheap and also very important in Air conditioning systems. Almost all the reputed companies in this business provides annual maintenance contract with their customers after expiry of warranty period of the appliance so that the customer can enjoy the same with the benefits through this plan which will safeguard against uncertainty and inconvenience. The Complainant bought Sharp Air Conditioner by making payment of Rs.37,000/- on 31.03.2014 as the Sharp Business System India private Limited promised that if the Complainant buy Sharp product they will provide him the AMC and such declaration can be verified from the front page of the customer copy of the AMC. SBSIL resorted to unfair trade practice by stopping AMC from the second year itself thereby providing their services through annual maintenance contract only for one year after expiry of warranty period. The Complainant renewed his AMC for his split air conditioner in accordance to the terms and conditions given in the customer copy of AMC of Sharp Business Systems India Limited by registering a request vide request no-178344 on 04.07.2016 and a representative of the Company came on 05.07.2016 and renewed the contract within due date after a cash payment of Rs. 3,605/- and handed over the customer copy of AMC with AMC no-0146. On 12.07.2016 the Complainant received a call over telephone through which he was informed that his AMC has been cancelled as Sharp Business Systems India Limited has stopped AMC for the time being. The Complainant felt that this would result the breach of contract and such change in the policy of the Company arbitrarily  is an example of unfair trade practice and he had remitted an e-mail to the Kolkata Branch Office and Head Office informing about such unnecessary harassment. On 12.07.2016 the Complainant received an e-mail from the Senior Customer Support Executive of Sharp Business Systems India Limited to contact with Mr. Barun Dey of Kolkata Branch Office. The Complainant had tried his best to make contact with the said person on several time for fair redressal of his grievance, but subsequently on 13.07.2016 the Complainant received an e-mail through which he was informed that Sharp Business Systems India Limited had stopped AMC for the time being. Thereafter the Complainant had approached before the Directorate of CA & FBP, Salt Lake RO for redressal of his grievance through mediation. Though the OP-2 was contacted through the said Office, but the OP-2 remained absent in the mediation meeting on 22.08.2012 inspite of receipt of the notice. On that day the Complainant had to face harassment as he had to take special leave from his urgent duty being a medical person. Inspite of such harassment and mental agony the Complainant tried to resolve his grievance through mediation and gave declaration that he was ready for another mediation meeting on 30.08.2016, but the OP-2 did not take any step to redress his grievance and gave a declaration in front of the Duputy Assistant Director-in-Charge that Sharp Business Systems India Limited has stopped AMC. As a result the grievance could not be redressed through the process of mediation and the Complainant was advised to approach before the Ld. DCDRF, North 24 Parganas at Barasat. An employee of the OP-Company contacted with the Complainant over telephone on 02.09.2016 informing that Sharp Business Systems India limited will honour the AMC only for the given period, but not giving any assurance as to whether it will renew this AMC after the said period if the Complainant applies for renewal as per SBSIL terms and conditions and hence the Complainant had to face severe mental agony. The action of the Company suffers from unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service as they have changed the policies as per their whims, not after discussion with the customers. On different dates and time they have contradict their own versions. The Company is solely liable for breach of contract as also rendered deficient service to him from 07.07.2016 to 31.08.2016. Due to such deficient service of the OPs the Complainant had to face mental agony, unnecessary harassment and also incurred huge financial loss. As the OPs did not take any step to redress his grievance, having no other alternative the Complainant had approached before the Ld. DCDRF, Barasat by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to provide him the AMC along with compensation to the tune of Rs.95,000/- due to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version contending that with a view to harass this OP, the Complainant has filed this complaint, which is not at all maintainable in the eye of law. It is stated by the OP-1 that the Complainant purchased the questioned Air Conditioner from this OP on 31.03.2014, but this complaint is filed by the Complainant in the year 2017, so this complaint is hopelessly barred by the law of Limitation. The Complainant has made out allegation against the OP-2 and 3, no allegation has been made out against this OP, therefore as the Complainant has miserably failed to establish any specific case/allegation against this OP, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP-1.the Warranty/Guarantee was provided by the OP-2 and 3, no warranty was provided by this OP and the Complainant has admitted the same in his complaint. So the duty/responsibility casts upon the shoulder of the OP-2 and 3. According to the OP-1 this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The petition of complaint have been contested by the OP-2 and 3 by filing conjoint written version contending that the dispute in question of the Complainant has already been solved by the OPs and being a renowned Company used to  serve the customer in general in its best level. The Company had stopped the AMC procedure for the time being due to its internal problem, inspite of all, treating the Complainant’s matter as a special case, ultimately renewed the AMC and after renewal of the AMC it was informed to the Complainant through e-mail. So the question for any deficiency in service does not arise and hence this complaint has no legs to stand upon and liable to be dismissed in limini.

On 23.11.2017 the Complainant had filed a petition supported by affidavit whereby prayer was made for adoption of the petition of complaint as his evidence. Thereafter scope was given to the OPs for filing questionnaire. Accordingly all the OPs have filed questionnaire with a copy to the Complainant. Date was fixed on 24.01.2019 for filing replies to the questionnaire by the Complainant on affidavit. On the said date no replies was forthcoming from the end of the Complainant. On 24.01.2019 the Complainant was to show cause on 17.04.2019. No cause was shown by the Complainant till 01.11.2019. The record speaks that on and from 24.01.2019 till 31.12.2020 the Complainant did not turn up.

It is pertinent to mention that after establishment of the Ld. Additional DCDRF, Rajarhat the case record had been transferred to this Ld. Commission (w.e.f. 20.07.2020) in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC dated 31.12.2019 whereby the Hon’ble SCDRC was pleased to direct the parties to appear before this Ld. Commission (as amended) on 21.01.2020. But inspite of the specific direction of the Hon’ble SCDRC the Complainant did not bother to turn up. This Ld. Commission was pleased to fix the date on 22.04.2020 for appearance of the parties. But due to severe out breaking of Corona Virus Lockdown was started as per the order of the Government of India as well as Government of West Bengal on and from 24/25.03.2020 till 31.10.2020. Complete lockdown was withdrawn by the Government of west Bengal on and from 01.11.2020. But from the month of June roaster duty was started, not in usual manner. This case record was placed before the Ld. Bench on 08.10.2020. None was present on the said date and hence next date was fixed on 31.12.2020, when the OPs were present, not the Complainant. Such prolonged inaction/absence of the Complainant reveals that as the grievance of the Complainant has already been redressed by the OPs, he is no more interested to proceed with this complaint.

Admittedly the evidence of the Complainant has lost its value as the Complainant did not bother to file the replies to the questionnaire of the OPs. Inspite of this we are inclined to pass the judgment on merit.

We have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written versions of the OPs and heard argument of the OPs as advanced. It is seen by us that the OPs have provided the AMC in connection with the Air Conditioner to the Complainant. For this reason the Complainant did not bother to turn up for a long period. In the prayer portion of the complaint the Complainant has prayed for AMC, which the Complainant had already received. The Complainant has also prayed for cost and compensation. In this respect we are to say that as the Complainant has filed this complaint and proceeded the complaint through the CAB, no occasion arose to incur any legal expenses and for this reason the Complainant is not entitled to get any litigation cost.

Regarding the prayer for compensation we are to say that the Complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove as to what extent he had to face harassment due to deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs. As the Complainant has failed to submit his replies to the questionnaire of the OPs, the evidence of the Complainant has been exhausted. So in our considered view the Complainant is also not entitle dto get any amount towards compensation as sought for,

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being no-RBT/CC/41/2020 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a plain copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR.

Dictated and Corrected by 

Hon’ble Mrs. Silpi Majumder

Member