By: Smt. Mini Mathew, Member
1.The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased one Onida Air Conditioner on 9-4-12 from first opposite party's shop at Perinthalmanna for his office room. The date of fitting of the Air Conditioner was on 8-5-12. Within 5 days of fitting of the Air conditioner it became defective and the complainant informed about this to the 1st opposite party on several occasions. But the opposite party did not respond to them. On 8-5-13 the complainant came to the 1st opposite party's showroom and informed that the Air Conditioner was not working. At that time the 1st opposite party informed the matter to the manufacturer and one technician from Onida Service Centre attended the Equipment. On his observation the power wire was seen damaged by rats and there was no power supply to the Air Conditioner and that was the reason for non-functioning of the Air Conditioner and they cured the defect. The executive of the opposite party had taken the Air Conditioner for repair on 8-5-13 and it was re-fitted on 21-5-13. Complainant further alleges that since the Air Conditioner was not fitted properly it did not function properly. Hence he claims Rs. 30000/- as compensation from the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice from this Forum served to opposite party No1 and he appeared before this Forum and filed version through which he denies all the allegations put forward by the complainant in the complaint. According to opposite party No1 there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part. He further alleges that the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties since the manufacturer of the Onida company is not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Subsequently complainant filed a petition for impleading opposite party No2 ie the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings and it was allowed also. Notice from this Forum has gone to opposite party No2 but it is returned with as endorsement “ Insufficient address, Hence returned”. The date of fitting of the Air Conditioner was also disputed by the opposite party No1 through his version. Opposite party No1 further alleges that there is no manufacturing defect to the Air Conditioner.
3. Complainant filed Chief Affidavit and documents marked as Exit. A1 to A4. After that opposite party No1 filed a petition for cross examination of the complainant and that was allowed. Complainant was cross examoned by opposite party No1.
Points are to be considerd.
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the party of opposite parties?
If so remedy and cost?
4. The complainant does not have a case that the Air Conditioner is not working. According to the complainant he had purchased the Air Conditioner on 9-4-12. As per the complaint as well as the document produced by the complainant it can be seen that the defect was noted only on 8-5-13 and it was cured also. Within one year of purchse the complainant didnot prefer any complaint before any authority regarding the non-functioning of the Air Conditioner he had purchased. In the complaint or the affidavit filed by the complainant there is no case that the Air Conditioner was defective. In short, as per the complaint there is no allegation about any manufacturing defects in functiong of the machine. This is surprised to note that the complainant has come before this Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 30000/- for the non-functioning of the Air Conditioner for one year. He has not cared to adduce any evidence regarding this aspect. Even according to the complaint the power wire to the Air Conditioner was destroyed by rat and which resulted in the non – supply of power to the Air Conditioner, which resulted the non-function of the Air Conditioner. When the matter was informed to the opposite partyNo1 a technician was sent to the complainant and he found out the reason for the non-function of the Air Conditioner and it was cured.
5. In cross examination complainant deposed before this Forum that “ നന്ദിലത്തില് നിന്ന് ആളു വന്നപ്പോള് wire cut ചെയ്ത കാര്യം എന്നോട് പറഞ്ഞു. ആയത് മുന്പ് കണ്ടിട്ടില്ല. അവരു പറഞ്ഞപ്പോഴാണ് A.C.Work ചെയാത്തത് വയര് cut ചെയ്തതു കൊണ്ടാണ് എന്ന കാര്യം എനിക്ക് മനസ്സിലായത്"
6. We have gone through Ext.A1 to A3 produced by the complainant in support of his case. The complainant appeared in person and conducted the case without assitance of the legal practitioner. So the complainant's case has got some inherent weakness. Ext. A1 is the warranty card issued by opposite party No1. It is not filled up properly. The one and only filled up coloum is the purchase date ie 9-4-12. All other coloums remains vaccant. The period of warranty is not mentioned in the warranty card. Any how, it carries the seal of opposite party No.1 As stated in the warranty card, “Thankyou for selecting a world class product and we assure you that it will perform as per your expectations”. But the equipment has not performed as per the expectations of the complainant. Hence this complaint. In Ext. A3, the invoice-cum cash memo dated 21-5-13 issued by the ADONIS ELECTRONICS PVT. Ltd., reveals that the complainant has paid Rs.850/- as service charge and accessaries. We feels that this document is genuine. Eventhough the complainant failed to prove and convince that there was any manufacturing defect with the goods, the document Ext. A3 is not a fabricated one. We do not think that, without any grievances, a consumer will not approach this Forum due to personal animosily and to defame a reputed company.
So, for the interest of justice, we order that the opposite party No.1 shall refund Rs. 850/- (Eight Hundred and Fifty only) that they have collected from the complainant along with Rs.500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. No order as compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order
Dated this 18th day of December, 2014
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : P.Yousf, Complainant
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of MIRC Electronics Limited, Warranty Card
Ext.A2 : Written Letter
Ext A3 : Invoice-cum cash memo dated 21/05/2013
Ext A4 : Written Letter
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
