Compensation for deficiency in service must be just and fair, covering actual losses incurred by the consumer without resulting in unjust enrichment.

Present: Appellant in person.

Mr. Parameesh Takkar, Counsel for the Respondent appeared through VC.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“Complainant has requested to pass an award directing M/s Fujitsu General (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to pay Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 5.6% per annum from the date of 27.07.2020 for finishing in installation/breakage of stairs till its realization; (ii) to pay damage/compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain etc.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The complainant purchased 5 split AC of 1.5 tonne each for residential use on 22.07.2020. The payment for the said Acs was made through cheque dated 23.07.2020 for Rs.1,88,750/-. The installation of these Acs was done at free cost on 27.07.2020 under some scheme of the OP. It was alleged that workmanship by the installers was not carried out as per instructions of the complainant. During the process of installation, the installer used the stairs to bring gas cylinders and hit the stairs thereby badly broke the granite stone of stairs at two points. Repairs of the same costed the complainant by Rs.10,000/-. It was also noticed that earth wires of three outer units of Acs were not connected. Stabilizers were left out and some screws found missing in outer units. Further alleging that this kind of carelessness would have resulted in massive sparking and fire. The complainant immediately informed OP about this to Customer Care via WhatsApp. The emails dated 21.08.2020 & 24.08.2020 were also sent. It was assured by Customer Care that the technical team would visit within 24-48 hours. The complainant against sent e-mail dated 31.08.2020. The Branch Manager of Service Centre of OP sent e-mail dated 31.08.2020 showing willingness to rectify the faults left out at the time of installation and if proof of breakage could be shown. By return mail, he assured to produce the proof. But Branch Manager kept on insisting of any proof of breakage. Then, the complainant contacted Mr. Goyal – Service Head who agreed with the view of complainant to this fact that installation of CCTV may not be possible at each and every place. The Service Head gave an alternative option in place of loss of stairs breakage, free service to five Acs which were purchased around four years back would be provided, Mr. Zubair Ahmad – Branch Incharge offered to do this at 50% discount which was not acceptable to the complainant. Finding no response, the complainant got the legal notice issued. It was also submitted by the complainant that OP had sent reply denying the poor quality of installation. Further, OP denied the connection of earthen wire, screw etc. The complainant denied the reply sent by OP. Hence, the complaint. The complaint was got amended.

OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising preliminary objections. It was stated by OP that the copy of complaint was not complete, hence, he reserve the right to file amended WS. It was also denied that no breakage of granite of staircase was caused by the installation team. Hence complainant suffered no loss. The complainant could not produce any evidence showing the breakage of granite stair case. The installation work of Acs by franchise of OP is not disputed, however, it is denied that workmanship of installer was not good in line and length. It was also stated by OP that wiring of electrical appliances and refrigerators were concealed insi