DATE OF FILING : 24.08.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 30.11.2016.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12.07.2017.
Amjad Ali,
son of Azmat Ali,
residing at 9, Harachand Mukherjee Lane,
P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Managing Director,
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot no. 51, Surajpur Kasna Road,
Greater Noida 201 306 ( U.P),
India.
2. Multi Channel Electronics,
16, Panchanantolla Road,
Howrah 711 101.
3. S. N. Enterprise,
18 No. Shaheed Khudiram Bose Sarani,
Ichapur Sasthi Bagan,
Howrah 711 104.
4. SOUTH ENO PLAZA,
Ichapur Canal Side,
Howrah 711 104. …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta (Ganguli).
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Amjad Ali, against the o.p no. 1, The Managing Director, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., and three others, praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to replace the defective A.C. Machine in question and to pay compensation of Rs. 64,449/- for mental harassment and agony and also to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
- The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one L.G. 1.5 ton Split A.C. Machine being model no. 5DR5 on payment of Rs. 25,551/- on 20.03.2012 from the o.p. no. 2, Multi Channel Electronics. The petitioner used the said A.C. machine for two years smoothly but in the month of March, 2014, the compressor of the said machine did not work properly. After observing such problem petitioner lodged complaint before the o.ps. Thereafter on 22.03.2014 the o.p. no. 3 sent its representative to repair the machine and after repairing, a bill was raised amounting to Rs. 449/- which was paid the petitioner but within a short span of time the same problem again started. That incident was conveyed to the o.p. no. 1 on 22.3.2014. Again on 26.03.2014 the o.p. no. 3 deputed its men and they changed some parts of the said A.C. machine and issued a bill amounting to Rs. 3,582/- which was paid by the petitioner but within few days the same problem cropped up. Subsequently the petitioner lodged complaint before the o.p. no. 1 and the technician of the company changed some parts of compressor but the problem was not cured. Several attempts were made by the o.ps. but the machine was not repaired properly. Thereafter an advocate letter dated 14.07.2015 was sent to the o.ps. requesting them to change the defective A.C. Machine in question but they did not pay any heed, alternatively they sent their representative to repair the same. But after few days the machine again went out of order and the petitioner informed the o.ps. and they deputed their men and they raised a bill amounting to Rs. 575/- after repairing. But that time also the machine was not repaired properly. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed this instant complaint with the aforesaid prayers.
- The o.p. no. 1, manufacturer, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., contested the case by filing a written version denying allegations made against them and submitted that the problem in respect of said A.C. machine in question was detected and solved and no unreasonable bills were charged. The parts like compressor, condenser, film capillary were replaced fully free of costs, so there is no deficiency in service on its part. The other o.ps. did not contest the case and thus the case is heard ex parte against them.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filled affidavit as well as documents wherefrom it is noticed that he purchased one L.G. 1.5 ton Split A.C. Machine being model no. 5DR5 on payment of Rs. 25,551/- on 20.03.2012 from the o.p. no. 2, Multi Channel Electronics and the money receipt proves the same. From the documents submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it is noticed that the LG Air Conditioner comes with 12 months warranty on all parts except grill & plastic parts and thereafter 4 years additional warranty on the compressor from the date of purchase of the product. The o.p. no. 1 being the manufacturer of the A.C. Machine in question submitted that the said machine was repaired properly without any unreasonable bills and they replaced the compressor, condenser and film capillary and attend the petitioner as and when called for. The o.p. further submitted all the calls of the petitioner and repaired the machine and replaced various parts of the machine including the compressor but now there is no such allegation that the compressor is out of order and no question of repairing or repairing any parts of the machine or paying any compensation to the petitioner.
- This Forum considered all aspects of the matter and keeping in mind the submission of the counsels of both sides and the contents of the petition of the petitioner and the written version of the o.ps. and finding from the documents that the o.ps. attended the petitioner and repaired the machine and some times replaced the parts including the compressor within the warranty period. Now there is no allegation in the case that the A.C. machine is out of order and taking account of the previous dates of repairs and replacement of parts as cause of action the petitioner filed this case for changing the said machine which is not tenable because this Forum finds no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. company. As on all time they attended the petitioner and repaired the machine and replaced parts like compressor, condenser etc.
In view of above discussion and findings, this Forum finds that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. manufacturer, who replaced the parts like compressor and others and thus it would not be wise and proper to direct the company to replace the total A.C. machine after a lapse of five years.
In the result, the application fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 281 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest without costs against the O.Ps.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda)
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
