C.C.No.103/2008

Between:

1.Smt Kuppala Mangatayaru, W/o Yedukondalu, 43 years,
Near Bhaskara Theator, Kadiyam Swaram Road,
Kadiyam Mandal, E G Dist.
2.Kuppala Sivarama Krishna, S/o Yedukondalu, 27 years,
Near Bhaskara Theator, Kadiyam Swaram Road,
Kadiyam Mandal, E G Dist. ..Complainants.

A N D

1.The Global Comfort Care, Rep by its Proprietor/
Managing Partner, A C Mart, Near Reliance Petrol
Bunk, Near Vikas Collage, RTC Complex Road,
Morampudi, Rajahmundry.

2.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd, B.1/A-14,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110 004.

3.Deputy General Manager, Sriram City Union Finance Ltd,
Near Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajahmundry. ..Opposite parties.
This case is coming on 20.3.2009 .for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Sunil Lionel, Advocate for the complainants and the opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte Sri B S P Chowdary, Advocate for the 3rd opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following.

O R D E R

(By Smt.H V Ramana, Member)
This is a complaint filed under section.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainants to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.48,000/- the cost of two AC units with interest @24% from the date of complaint till the date of realization and to award damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.


2. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint in brief is that, the complainants purchased two air conditioner units bearing Nos.AA6510E0800AA73M0567 and AA6/10E0800AA73MO857 for Rs.24,000/- each on 16.4.2008 from the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer and the 3rd opposite party is the financier. The units were installed on 17.4.2008 by their technicians. The financier received Rs.16,000/- as down payment and received 11 post dated cheques for Rs.2,084/- each in the name of Andhra Bank, Katarnagar Branch, Rajahmundry and six post dates cheques for Rs.2,084 each in the name of Ing Vysya bank, Rajahmundry. The above said AC units were not functioned properly even for 10 days after installation and the 1st opposite party agreed to replace the units on 30.4.2008 initially, but afterwards the opposite parties not responded and the complainant visited the opposite parties show room number of times. Then the complainant instructed their banks to stop payments. The 3rd opposite party was pressurizing the complainant for payment of the installment. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 12.7.2008 to all the opposite parties and the 3rd opposite party issued a reply with false allegations and the 1st opposite party’s notice was returned with an endorsement that the shop was closed continuously. Hence, the complaint.


3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent even though the publication is given, hence remained exparte. The 3rd opposite party filed its written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant. It is true that this opposite party provided loan to the complainants for purchase of two air conditioners from the 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party further submits that the duty and responsibility was seized as soon as the finance is provided to the complainant for the above said purchase. It is not correct to state that the Ac units of the complainants were not functioning properly and therefore the complainants have no obligation to pay the installments to this 3rd opposite party. This opposite party had provided finance for two air conditioners and obtained post dates cheques for due performance of the finance agreement entered into by the complainants and this opposite party. The repayment of loan amount would be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement and the complainants are bound to perform their part of agreement, as this opposite party has already performed its part of the agreement by providing finance. This opposite party has nothing to do with the performance of the consumer items and this opposite party has no say in selection of brand of the goods selected by the complainants. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and this opposite party has no way connected with the defective air conditioners. This opposite party came to know about the defects of the goods only after the receipt of the above said notice and also gave a reply to the complainants. Hence, this opposite party is not liable for any of the claims claimed by the complainants.


4. Exs.A.1 to A.8 has been marked on behalf of the complainants and no documents reported on behalf of the opposite parties and no oral evidence has been adduced on either side.


5. Heard both sides. Complainant filed its written arguments.


6. The points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties ?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief, If so, to what
relief ?



7.POINT NO.1: The case of the complainants is that the complainants purchased two Haier air conditioners from the 1st opposite party which were manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and the same were financed by the 3rd opposite party. The complainants submitted that the original bills were with the 3rd opposite party who is the financier. The complainants contended that the two air conditioners were defective and as a result one unit with its stabilizer caught fire. The 2nd unit never worked continuously for 10 minuets even from the date of its purchase. When the complainant gave a complaint to the 1st opposite party, their technician attended and took away the stabilizer along with warranty card vide Ex.A.6. The above said two units were within the warranty period and the warranty cards have been marked under Ex.A.7 and A8. When the complainant approached number of times to the opposite party they failed to attend the units and also failed to deliver the stabilizer. The complainant further contended that the 1st opposite party agreed to replace the units, but they failed to do so. Then the complainants instructed both the banks to stop payment of cheques issued infavour of the 3rd opposite party. One of the bank acknowledged acknowledged the intimation to stop payment of cheques vide Ex.A.5. When the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to rectify the defects the complainant got issued a legal notice to them under Ex.A.4 and for which the 3rd opposite party gave a reply under Ex.A.3.
The opposite parties 1 and 2 miserably failed to rectify the defects nor attended before this Forum to prove themselves and this is nothing but deficiency in service on their part. As per the material on record we wont find any deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party and he is no way concerned with the defective goods. Hence, the claim against the 3rd opposite party is dismissed.


8. POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint of the complainants is allowed in part directing 1st and 2nd opposite parties to attend the two disputed AC units and rectify the defects if any and deliver the two AC units in good working condition within one month from the date of this order. In the circumstances of the case, we direct each party to bear their own costs.