CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.643 OF 2009 Date of filing : 06/04/2009

@ MISC. APPL. NO.652 OF 2009 (Delay) Date of order : 17/08/2009

@ MISC. APPL. NO.653 OF 2009 (Stay)

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.62 OF 2008

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE



Onida Service Centre,

(Adonis Electronics Pvt.Ltd.)

Zadgaon, Ratnagiri. … Appellant/Org.Opponent.



V/s.



Mr.Nikhil Gangan,

693 I, Sankal Park Opal,

Shivajinagar, Ratnagiri-415639. ... Respondent/Org.Complainant.




Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Miss. Kalpana Kanhere, Advocate for Appellant.

None for Respondent.



- : ORDER :-

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1) This appeal arises out of order/award dated 23/12/2008 passed in Consumer complaint No.62/2008 Mr.Nikhil V.Gangan V/s M/s.Samarth Enterprises & another, passed by District Consumer Forum, Ratnagiri (‘Forum below’ in short). Respondent /Org. Complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘Complainant’).



2) The undisputed facts are that Respondent/Org.Complainant- Nikhil Gangan had purchased Split AC of Onida Company for a consideration of Rs.18,000/- on 15/03/2008 through its authorized dealer-Org.O.P.No.1-M/s.Samarh Enterprises. Appellant/Org.O.P.No.2-Onida Service Centre is authorize service centre of Onida company and attended the complaints regarding the Split AC in question.

3) It is the complaint of Respondent/Org. Complainant – Nikhil Gangan that the AC purchased was giving unbearable sound and therefore, he made a complaint. Org. O.P. replaced the AC. However, with new replaced AC also, the complaint continues. Therefore, again when the complaints were lodged orally as well as in writing, Mr.Lodh and Shri.Khatri, representative of Appellant/Org. O.P.No.2 visited and inspected the AC. They admitted the fault and promised to replace the same but in vain. Ultimately, after promising, notice was sent to Respondent on 23/07/2008 and since the notice met with no reply, the consumer complaint was filed. It was partly decreed directing the Opposite Parties to repay the price of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental torture and harassment. Feeling aggrieved thereby O.P.No.2-Onida Service Centre filed this appeal.



4) Heard Miss.Kalpana Kanhere, Advocate for Appellant. Perused the record.



5) There is delay of four days in filing this appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is of few days. Delay is not intentional or deliberate. We are therefore, inclined to condone the delay. Application for condonation is allowed and delay is accordingly condoned.



6) In the instance case, the fact that the Split AC purchased was giving unbearable sound and even the replaced unit was also giving the same trouble and therefore, when repeatedly complaints were lodged, representative of Appellant/ Org.O.P.No.2 visited the place of complaint and inspected the AC and admitting the defect, promises to replace defective unit. However, said promise was not kept. Ultimately, lawyer’s notice was given to the Opposite Party. It was also met with no response from the Opposite Party and, therefore, ultimately, this consumer complaint was filed. Considering the establish fact as to deficiency in service, the Forum below rightly held accordingly and further considering the response on behalf of Opposite Parties and relying upon the decision of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the matter of M/s.Sony Enterprises V/s. Shri.Aashish Agrawal 2008 (I) C.P.R.47 (NC), partly decreed the complaint. We find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by Forum below.



7) It is tried to be argued on behalf of the appellant that the split AC unit is manufactured by Onida company and Appellant/Org.O.P.No.2-Onida Service Centre is wrongly prosecuted in this consumer complaint. We are not much impressed by the argument in question in the background of fact of this particular case. The complaints were attended by the Appellant/Org.O.P.No.2-Onida Service Centre and its they who promised to replace the faulty unit. Further they effectively represent manufacturing company Onida. Hence, the argument on the point is devoid of any substance.



8) For the reason sated above we hold accordingly and pass the following order :



-: O R D E R :-



1) Mis.Application No.652/2009 is allowed. Delay is condonded.

2) Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

3) No order as costs.

4) Mis.Application No.653/2009 stands dispose of as infructuous.

5) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member



A.J.