PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.-185/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Hemant Kumar Pradhan

C/O- Nigamananda Tripathy

S/O-Jagarnath Pradhan

At- Shanti Nagar, Near Army Recruitment Office

Po- Budharaja, Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha Pin- 768004        ….......Complainant

-Vrs. -

1. Hitachi India Pvt Ltd

Regd Head Office-World Mark-1, Tower-B

Near Indira Gandhi International Airport

Delhi, Aerocity Pin-110037

2. Radient Enterprises

Authorized Dealer Hitachi Air Conditioner

Dhuchurapada ChowkG.M. College Road, Sambalpur Pin- 768001

3. Panda Techno Service

Authorized Service Centre

Hitachi Air Conditioner 

SSI Building, G-2, Pradhanpada

Sambalpur Odisha Pin-768001                                ………........Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant           :- Sri. Rahul Gupta & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                :- Sri. Rajdeep Gupta & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2 & 3        :-Ex-parte

Date of Filing:19.10.2023,  Date of Hearing :02.04.2024  Date of Judgement : 29.04.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief case of the Complainant is that the Complainant filed the case against the OPs towards deficiency in service, illegal trade practice cheating to the customer, using deceptive techniques to grab the hard- earned money of consumer and unnecessary harassment to the Complainant. The Complainant had purchased an AC from OP NO. 2 on dtd. 31.5.2020 by paying of Rs. 46000/- and one V-Guard Stabilizer by paying Rs. 6500/- who is the dealer of OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 is the authorized service center. The warranty period of the AC is One year for AC and 5 year for the compressor but on dtd. 13.03.2021 cooling problem found in the AC. The Complainant lodged oral complaint before OP NO. 1 & 2 but they did not listen. Thereafter, the Complainant has registered his complain on dtd. 29^th March, 2021 to the customer care.  The customer care promised the Complainant that they will send their technician but did not send the technician after several requests and messages. During the mean time the Covid-19 Pandemic started and the OPs taking the chance denied the Complainant for repairing saying there is no technician available. The Complainant has many times tried to contact the customer care services and registered complains but all the complaints has been cancelled saying that customer is not contactable. On dtd. 26.03.2023, the OP No. 3 has sent the technician for inspection of the AC, who after inspection again refilled the gas and charged Rs. 3500/- and issued a receipt thereof despite of the product under warranty which is a clearly an illegal trade practice. After the said refilling again the same problem found, the Complainant again complained to the OP No. 3 and this time the Technician has uncounted the AC and taken that AC to the OP No. 3 service center and again after repairing reinstalled saying that the problem is resolved, but to the utter surprise of the Complainant the AC have the same problem as before and the AC was not cooling. The Complainant told the OP No. 3 but he denied saying he cannot do anything now and advised him to purchase a new one instead as this piece is not repairable anymore.
2. The Written Version of the OP No. 1 is that M/s Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd. is a different legal entity. The product in question is not manufactured and serviced by applicant. This company is having a separate legal entity and having no connection in respect of the nature of business of other company. Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd has impleaded as a party in the present case instead of that company who is the real manufacturer or service provider of the product.

The OP No. 2 & 3 are set-exparte.

3. From the aforesaid facts it is found that the Authorized Service Engineer tried to solve the problem but did not solve the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period. As per the Version of the OP No. 1 M/s Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd. is a different legal entity. As per liability of a product sellers u/s 86 of the CP Act, 2019, the product sellers should provide the correct address of the product manufacturer. So deficiency in service found against the OP No. 2 who is the product seller. Accordingly it is ordered.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on merit. The O.P No 2 is directed to pay Rs. 50,500/- towards cost of the AC to the Complainant and return back the old AC from the Complainant. Further the OP No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 29^th day of April, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.