Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member 

This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 17-11-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC No. 542/2013, whereof the complaint case has been allowed. 

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that, she purchased the subject AC Machine from the OP No. 4 on 06-06-2012.  It is alleged that although the said machine was required to undergo due servicing at least thrice a year, the OPs sent their representative for the first time on 30-05-2013 and the said technician only checked the indoor unit.  On 26-06-2013, the outdoor unit of the AC machine suddenly got burst and poisonous gas started leaking.  On the basis of Complainant’s complaint, one representative of the OPs made contact with the Complainant over phone and demanded Rs. 450/- as visit charge though the outdoor unit was under warranty for 4 years.  She was even told that the nature of complaint was not covered under the warranty for which, she would be required to pay due service charge in advance.  The Complainant though lodged complaint in this regard on 10-07-2013, the OPs took no positive step to redress her grievance; hence, the complaint. 

OP Nos. 1&2, on the other hand, submitted that warranty in respect of all parts of the AC machine was valid for one year; whereas, warranty in respect of the compressor was valid for 4 years from the date of its purchase.  It is stated that at the relevant point of time when the complaint was lodged, it was beyond warranty.  It is claimed by the OPs that free servicing was done thrice during one year.  As per the warranty card, visiting charge was applicable within the municipal limit of town where OP Nos. 1&2 had its authorized service centres.  These OPs further submitted that warranty of the company did not cover repair or replacement that would become necessary owing to bursting of the outdoor unit.  The warranty clause also did not cover any consequential or resulting liability, damage or loss to the property or life that would directly arise due to defect of the AC.  Company’s obligation under the warranty was limited to repairing or replacing the defective parts only during the warranty period.  Hence, the Complainant was not entitled to any relief prayed for by her.  

Decision with reasons 

Parties were heard and documents on record carefully gone through. 

At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant prayed for due liberty to prove that the AC machine in question is indeed suffering from manufacturing defect.  The Respondents did not oppose such plea. 

Considering all aspects, in the interests of natural justice, I am inclined to remand the case to the Ld. District Forum for fresh adjudication of the same after obtaining independent expert opinion in the matter. In case the Appellant insist to amend the cause title of the case by including the city office address of the Respondent, that may be allowed by the Ld. District Forum. 

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part. 

Hence,

O R D E R E D 

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 28-08-2018.