Order No. 14 Dt. 24.02.2015
This is a case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by Kishore Gupta of Harirampur Village of Dakshin Dinajpur district against Raj Electronics of Malda and of Samsung of Gurgaon for not providing new A.C. machine instead of purchased A.C. which is defected and claiming for order to replace the defective A.C. Machine and a sum of Rs. 60000/- for causing harassment and sustaining loss and injury.
The fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased one split A.C. Machine of Samsung Company for an amount of Rs. 37000/- on 25.06.2013 and the same after installation had the problem of gas leaking from the machine and the cooling system not performed properly and even with repair work by company’s mechanic the compressor of the machine burst out within the months making the machine out of order and thereafter repairing the machine as service and also as paid service the A.C. did not work properly and the company tried to evade responsibility and being tired of non-utility of the AC Machine, the petitioner suffered a lot and put this case before completion of warranty period to get his redressal of his problem within a specified period.
O.P. 1 Raj Electronics and O.P.2 Samsung contested the case filing written version separately. O.P.1 mentions of jurisdiction which is not proper here though admitted the purchase of split A.C. by the complainant and was of the view that the complainant made no complaint to O.P. as per norms and agreed to the possibility of burning of compressor for voltage problem and denies allegation of taking refilling money and also having no process to examine every machine before sell and thereby not giving warranty card in the date of sale and giving the same after seven days but the complainant did not turn up did not get Cash Memo and warranty card and appealed for dismissal of the case as the complainant had no cause to file the case.
O.P. -2 also prayed for dismissal of the case as complainant did not annex complaint letter or docket number to O.P.2 and not adducing any papers and documents in support of defect of A C Machine and also no expert evidence provided and hence the complaint is baseless, vague and cannot stand and hence prayed for dismissal.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-
- Whether the case 28/2014 is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
;:DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 & 4
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.
In support of his case the petitioner Kishore Gupta deposed before this Forum as P.W.-1 and submitted two documents Ext.-1 and Ext.-2. Ext.-1 is the Air Conditioner user and installation manual whereas Ext.-2 is the challan depicting cost of A.C. Machine ( Samsung 2 ton Split A.C.) as Rs. 37000/- and also confirmation for receiving the same in good condition. In his cross-examination the complainant deposed that he purchased the machine for use in house and made complainant through customer care though he did not remember the call number at the moment and also confirmed that he did not call any expert but the mechanic to whom O.P. -1 sent to him, told that the machine has defect.
The O.Ps did not adduce any evidence nor provided any documents in support of the written statements and in their cross-examination to P.W.-1 it is established that O.P.1 sent man to P.W.-1 who told him that the machine had defect and this Forum heard the learned Counsels of both the parties that is the petitioner as well as O.P. 1 and O.P. 2 the Samsung Company from Ld.Counsel for both O.P. 1 and 2
Ld.Counsel for the petitioner argued that in spite of installing the said A.C. machine he did not get the comfort of proper cooling of the A.C. Machine. While the compressor leaked out, the deficiency repaired by the mechanic of O.P. but the A.C. machine did not run well and still not running properly and also though he informed O.P. regarding the problems of the machine and specially its bursting, the company did not respond but this argument did not stand as there is no case in W.S. or evidence He also said that the company did not show their will to satisfy customer for defects and the related warranty card had no print of signature from the Company. Though the complainant asked for replacement of the defective machine, O.P. 2 did not respond to the call of the complainant.
On the other hand the Ld.Counsel for O.P. 1 and O.P.2 said that they have rendered services properly and mentioned that they provide service as per asking within the warranty period and therefore, there is no any deficiency on their part.
From the written version of the petitioner his document and his examination by O.P. and from the written statement of the O.Ps and then examining petitioner two following questions come to our mind.
- Whether the petitioner purchased the A.C. Machine?
- Whether the O.P’s were informed of the defects of the A.C. Machine?
As per the first question is concerned, it is revealed that the petitioner purchased a Air Conditioning Machine manufactured by Samsung Company from Raj Electronics, Malda and on the face of it, it also amply proved that the Air Conditioning Machine had problems from the beginning and as purchaser, petitioner contacted O.P.1 time and again for redressal of the defects of the machine and though O.Ps denied in their versions about receiving of information from petitioner they are not true to the facts because in their cross-examination part on their asking the petitioner categorically stated that O.P.1 sent man for repairing defects of the machine. This thus prove that the complainant reached the O.P.s for the defects of the machine and the O.P. was well aware of the problems of the new A.C. Machine sold by them for a value of Rs. 37000/- and also tried to rectify the defects by sending man but ultimately failed to do so, thus tantamountly agreeing to the comment of their mechanic which he said to the petitioner silently understanding the defect of the machine. Thus it appears to be a clear fact that the petitioner suffered a lot after purchasing the A.C. Machine from the point of comfort from cooling in the hot atmosphere and the O.P.’s version for non-hearing regarding A.C. Machine Weakness/ Defectiveness is unintelligible and in the age of S & T, proper working of Air Conditioner is not at all costly from the point of rationality and O.P’s responsibility to fructify such products for all along and all times and for the same they need to act as bunder from the front from the back and from all sides. It proves to a great degree that in spite of their knowledge of the supplied A.C. Machines flickering the O.P.s did not take steps to touch the heart of the truth related to a comfort apparatus manufactured by them for the service of public.
Secondly, it stands that the petitioner did not take steps to verify the weakness of the Machine by an expert but the question is – Is it the responsibility of the user, his discomfort and avouching the same why cannot be penetiating to the seller / manufacturer and it is thus the responsibility of the O.Ps to call expert to verify the disgusted appearance of the purchaser / customer in the case of problems with a new A.C. Machine.
It is also their admission that they did not issue the warranty card at the time of the purchase of the product, therefore, it is established that they did not issue the warranty card. But the problem of the A.C. Machine started cropping up before the expiry of seven days and this phenomena reflects that they are not sincere and vigilant to the customers needs though the customer purchased the A.C. with full cost paying as per all the norms of the seller.
Complaint succeeds.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F. C. Case No. 28/2014 is allowed on contest in part against O.P.1 and O.P.2
Complainant do get an award against O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 for a new A.C. Machine with all papers through replacement of the defective A.C. machine as per agreement and Rs. 5000/- for harassment within a period of 45 days from the date of this order failing which they will be bound to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the value of the A.C. Machine from the day until receiving and also the petitioner is at liberty to put the decree in execution.
