DATE OF DISPOSAL: 09.04.2021.
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,President:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a retired government servant and senior citizen for self employment and livelihood purposes, the complainant constructed a banquet hall in the name of Sudha Banquet which is used for social functions, occasions and sometimes it has been using for the general public purposes also and for the comfort of users, the complainant decided to affix Cassette Air Conditioners in the said hall, so that entire hall can be maintained normal temperature especially during the summer season. The O.P.No.1 is a manufacture of Hitachi Cassette Air conditioners, O.P.No.2 is a sub-ordinate administrative officer designated as Assistant Manager Service of the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.4 is the Authorized dealer of the O.P.No.1 at Berhampur in the district of Ganjam of the Odisha state who is authorized to sell the products of O.P.No.1 in the retail market. The complainant purchased three numbers of Hitachi Cassette AC for the above self-employment purpose from the O.P.No.4 make of O.P.No.1 on 24.08.2018 vide No. RAG036HYD3 for Rs.2,79,000.01 paisa including CGST and SGST and the complainant also paid Rs.46,000/- towards installation charges but the O.Ps not issued the cash invoice towards said payment violating law of the land. After using for less than one year from the date of purchase, two numbers of AC became defunct and shown defects on 10.06.2019 and on the same day, the complainant complaint about the matter over the phone to the company service provider and the O.Ps deputed one Sri Deepu Bishoyi but to no avail. Thereafter the complainant approached the O.Ps over the phone on different dates i.e on 15.06.2019, 18.06.2019, 26.06.2019, 03.07.2019, 04.07.2019, 05.07.2019, 06.07.2019, 07.07.2019 and 08.07.2019 but neither from the O.Ps have responded nor any authorized service provider had come to rectify the defects in the said AC. The complainant issued an advocate notice dated 29.07.2019 to all the O.Ps through registered post with acknowledgement on 29.07.2019 but did not choose to reply to the said advocate notice, the reasons best known to them. When nothing fruitful, the complainant and his son namely Sri Nihar Ranjan Mohapatra made complaints on toll free number, SMS and acknowledging the complaints from the complainant and his son, the O.Ps issued SMS to the mobile number of said Sri Nihar Rlanjan Mohapatra in different dates in between 1st June 2020 and 30th August 2020. On 18.08.2020 a service engineer from Chillmech Techno Service, Bhubaneswar the O.P.No.4 on behests of the other O.Ps checked the said two defective ACs in the premises of the complainant and reported that “Found compressor faulty” and “Comp to be changed, job pending” bearing complaint report dated 18.08.2020 vide No. 1994. The O.P.No.2 has issued a proposal for ancillary supply/work vide No.JCH-IN/BBSR/OTC/NM/240820 dated 24.08.2020 to the son of the complainant and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.35,854/- towards different parts of the said ACs with a condition which was having an offer validity: 30 days and also issued a note that, “This offer is valid only for one time correction job so there is not any kind of warranty will be applicable”. The complainant the father of Sri Nihar Ranjan Mahapatra, did not accept the said offer made by O.P. No.2 on behest of other O.Ps during this pandemic covid-19 and the enforcement period of warranty of compressors and other parts of the two ACs. And refusing the said offer of the O.Ps , the complainant again issued another advocate notice dated 20.09.2020 through the Law Berhampur on 22.09.2020 through registered post with AD and also through an Email of the O.Ps. The O.P.No.1 & 2 duly acknowledged the same on 29.09.2020 but did not choose to reply to the said advocate notice. The air-condition machines are perishable goods rather it is a durable product which can be used for a longer period and for which the complainant purchased the air-conditioner of ceiling cassette type Indoor Unit for his self-employment by paying huge amount. But the presumptions to run for a longer period at least warranty period but the machines are started showing defective within a period of one year. The O.Ps never replied and come forward to provide services to the complainant during the period of 1st year of the warranty period and even the O.Ps No.1, 2 & 4 have not replied to registered advocate notice dated 29.07.2019 and 20.09.2020which constitute the deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The O.Ps did not comply with the terms and conditions of warranty provided with the AC especially clause 9.0 i.e. ‘Warranty of compressor’. By these actions of all the O.Ps, the complainant is suffering from irreparable agonies like mentally, physically. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the defective two air conditioner with two new tested air conditioners or otherwise refund the entire amount, compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. But the O.Ps did not appear and file their written version on the date fixed as such they are set exparte on 25.03.2021.
4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. From the record it reveals that the complainant had purchased three numbers of Hitachi cassette AC from O.P.No.4 make up O.P.No.1 by paying cash payment of Rs. 2,79,000/- including GST and SGST (Annexure-A) having one year warranty bearing No. RAG036HYD3 dated 24.8.2018 copies of the invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-J but unfortunately within the warranty period the above two numbers of AC. The above AC found defective and not functioning properly for which the complainant had complaint to the O.Ps for necessary repairs in turn the O.Ps paid deaf year. To substantiate his claim the complainant had filed all photo copies of the purchased bill and other necessary papers marked as Annexure-A to J series. Hence it is abundantly clear that the complainant has repeatedly approached the O.,Ps for the defective of the above AC for necessary repair where the O.Ps services engineer found defective and noted with a comment “ Found compressor faulty and compressor to be changed, job pending “. On examining the whole transaction it is pertinent to mention here that there is one year valid warranty for the alleged above ACs and the defect arose within the warranty period as the O.Ps deliberately remained adamant and also not prefer to appear just to avoid the claim of the complainant. The Commission constrained to relying on the version of the complainant is of the view that the alleged ACs has inherent defect and there is vivid deficiency in service by the O.Ps declined to redress of the grievance of the consumer and demanding the undue service charges for the parts to be replaced for which the complainant is not agreed to the proposal. So that the defect is not rectified till today and the ACs lying un-used. For the above acts the O.Ps violated the sections of 12, 14,16, and 59 of sales of Goods Act, 1930 read with section 2 sub section 10,11,21,22 ,23,24, 33,34,35,36,37, 38, 47 (i) (h) (A) (B) of the C.P.Act, 2019. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the price or replace of the said defective ACs alongwith substantial compensation for all such harassment having been impounded with mental agony and deprivation of the use of the same for the long time and so also the cost of the litigation as we found there is deficiency in service by the O.Ps and the complainant is entitled to get relief. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. Law is well settled that if the consumer is lodging complaints regularly and the producer/manufacturer attending the complaints to remove the defects regularly that amounts to manufacturing defects. In this event, the manufacturer should replace the product with new one. Non-attending of complaint after lodging and issuing of the complaint number by the O.Ps is amount to deficiencies of services. It is also pertinent to mention here that the O.Ps failed to provide proper service to the complainant during the warranty period and also disobedience to the notice of Learned Forum.
6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is some deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. In the result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to repair the complainant’s Hitachi Cassette AC in free of cost as per the complainant’s satisfaction along with extended fresh warranty or in alternative to refund the cost of two numbers of Air Conditioners as per Annexure-A-. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- only as compensation for mental agony along with Rs.2000/- only towards cost of litigation to the complainant. Both the orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within two months from the receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum. In case the O.Ps pay the cost of the A.Cs to the complainant and comply the order of this Commission the complainant shall refund the defective A.Cs to the O.Ps. The case is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 9th April 2021 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
