Order-11.
Date-28/04/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP is a renowned company carrying its business from above mentioned office and OP2 is a regional office of that product manufacturing company and complainant purchased one Hitachi Air Conditioning machine (window1.1 model No.KAZE plus RAW 312KTD) from M/s. Golden Refrigeration Company as on 12-02-2014 for the amount of Rs.24,000/-. That machine had functioned effortlessly for first 6 months from the date of its installation but after such period of time its capacity to provide effective cool air was found decreasing gradually and immediately complainant booked a complaint against such malfunctioning of the machine through a telephone call on the telephone number provided by them at Golden Refrigeration Company and duly made a call to its service center, its phone No.9831564201-205 as stated in their invoice and mentioned all the required documents in this regard and they have accepted the complaint but did not provide him any docket number. Subsequently they have sent their service engineer in due course of time and they thoroughly inspected the machine and said that it will run with efficacy again if it is made clear/wash by using water and eventually they did the same but after cleaning process they denied to hand over job sheet only insisted to make a signature of complainant over their job card and complainant reluctantly signed over it. But few days after such incident i.e. the machine again started running inefficiently in terms of cooling the area where it is installed, eventually complainant again lodged a complaint with the service centre of the Golden Refrigeration Co. over the phone on 08-09-2014 and again this time they did not rendered any docket number etc. but service engineer arrived at reasonable time and came to a conclusion after checking they remarked that the circuit is needed to be changed. Eventually they decided to replace the circuit and installed a running circuit inside the machine but even after that cooling problem still persist and despite their above mentioned action and unfortunately the machine did not function as usual for cooling air. Then complainant again asked the authority of HITACHI to send their engineers again to replace the circuit again and they have changed or replaced the circuit which is not belong to same model what complainant purchased with the pretext of the fact that they did not have any more circuit in their stock though they are changed the said circuit but air condition machine did not functioned even after such initiative taken by company’s engineers the machine still does not produce its normal function of cooling then again and again complainant contacted the OP but they did not take any steps but they assured that they shall take adequate and timely measures to make the machine flawless to ensure its optimal functions, but they did not provide any job sheet but ultimately such machine is not functioning for which it is kept idle and as because he is running a saloon and it was highly needed for running his business he purchased new machine and practically for the negligent and deficient manner of service complainant is suffered much and in fact, it is a major defect for which machine is not cooling as usual for the complainant within warranty period though OPs assured to refund but it was not replaced. In the above complainant lodged a complaint before Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Kolkata but OPs did not turn up for which settlement could not be made and ultimately the consumer after deceiving by the OPs this complaint is filed for redressal.
On the other hand OP2 HITACHI Company by filing written statement submitted that OP2 inspected and changed the circuit, as the door of a hair cutting parlour remains open most of the time which is not healthy for an ac machine and the same shall be malfunctioning defect but ought to be termed as mis-handling or putting over pressure which caused the said machine to malfunction and it is for commercial purpose and the machine is for residential one, so the configuration, technology and potentiality of machine is adverse from those essential one but OPs have further submitted that they have no doubt inspected that machine time to time washed and cleaned but it is specifically mentioned by the OPs that practically there was no reason for granting any relief on the ground the entire complaint is frivolous and AC machine is not handled properly for which time to time problem arose for which the present complaint should be dismissed.
But anyhow, OP1 did not turn up and did not file any written version even after receipt of the notice. Accordingly, the case is closed finally and after hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties for decision.
Decision with Reasons
On comparative study of the complaint and written version and also the materials on record it is found that complainant purchased HITACHI make AC window1.1 model No.KAZE plus RAW 312KTD from Golden Refrigeration Co. on payment of Rs.24,000/- on 12-02-2014 with warranty of the company and warranty of the OP2 was from 12-02-2014 to 11-02-2015 and that warrantee was issued on the date of purchase. Fact remains on 25-10-2014 a defect was inspected and on inspection they found some work would be required and that was done by the OP but no service challan was handed over and at the same time nothing was done and fact remains the said air condition machine is not functioning and complainant was compelled to purchase a new air condition machine of other company because it is his only hard-earning centre and it is a saloon and it is highly required to make the demand of the customers in the hot days. Fact remains OP’s Ld. Lawyers has tried to say that the said machine is not functioning due to misuse of the same by the complainant but such a story cannot be believed in view of the fact, in many shops there are AC machines, customers are entering and outgoing but for that reason working of a machine cannot be hampered. But fact remains that if there are certain defects in the machine only in that case the machine can provides such malfunctioning. So, admitted position is that engineer of the OP inspected that machine but not repaired it properly and also did not hand over any job sheet or service sheet. Now, the position is that AC machine is not functioning and that has not been denied by the OPs then question is within the warrantee period why the said machine has not functioned properly then it is the liability of the OP Company including the seller jointly to give the customer to give proper satisfaction and truth is that as per warrantee clause it is the liability of the OP company either to replace it or to refund the entire amount.
No doubt, one person shall have to purchase the AC on payment of Rs.24,000/- only for 6 months when warranty is for 12 months and fact remains warrantee period is for the period from 12-02-2014 to 11-02-2015 but this complaint was filed on 19-12-2014 then it is clear that only after working for 6 months the machine failed to act for which repeatedly complainant asked the OPs to replace the same or to make it workable for the purpose of producing cool air but OPs did not pay any heed though their engineers went to inspect it but did not take any action and which is negligent manner of service against the terms and condition of the warrantee. It must be kept in our mind that the warranty is not mere a paper, not only an assurance but warrantee is the liability of the company and the sellers to give the customer such satisfactory service in respect of running the said machine. Another factor is that in the said sale certificate or warrantee there is no such whisper actually what is the life expectancy of the said machine because in respect of the freeze and AC machine there must be a note what is the life expectancy of the said product but nothing is noted which indicates that HITACHI Company adopted an unfair trade practice. Another factor is that at the time of selling the said AC machine no such certificate of inspection or test report was issued by the OP to the customer to know that there was no manufacturing defect and fact remains OP has not denied in so many words that on inspection they did not find any manufacturing defect and it must be kept in our mind that manufacturing defect is such a nature it is found after certain period and very recently Tata Motors bands after getting complaint’s from the consumers declared certain items of their production bore some manufacturing defect and same should be replaced that is a manufacturer’s corporate responsibility and in this case OP has not shown such responsibility by any means whatsoever, anyhow, after proper consideration it is found that at this stage there is no scope for any replacement because said machine did not serve the purpose of the complainant to earn his livelihood from his small shop (saloon) and only to give relief to the customer he purchased another unit of another company. So, at this stage it is the duty of the OP not to replace but to refund at least the purchase price that is Rs.24,000/- because said machine ran for only 6 months. But that is not the position of law but law is that within the warranty period any machine is found defective and is not giving proper service in that case same shall be replaced or the entire amount shall be refunded and when within the warranty period it did not work so, it was not replaced or repaired by the OP for which deficiency and negligence both on the part of the OPs are found so, they are equally liable for refund of the purchase amount Rs.24,000/- to the complainant and no doubt complainant has been harassed and no doubt for running his daily saloon shop he faced several problems and to protect the interest of the customer and for his business he was compelled to purchase another new Air Conditioner only to give satisfaction to the customer when the customer satisfaction is the highest responsibility of the saloon owner shown for his customers satisfaction that has not be shown by the OP, the manufacturer and it simply proves that the manufacturer companies are less interested about customer or consumer’s satisfaction. They are only interested to sell their article or unit through the dealer and to collect capital but not to give proper service and not to give such sort of beneficial work as per warrantee to the customer through their dealer or service provider who is present in the case so, in any circumstances, any defence of the OP cannot be accepted as meaningful, reasonable and also anyway convincing for holding that there was no fault on the part of the OP. On the other hand, it is proved fault on the part of the OPs for which invariably complainant has suffered much and he has been harassed and no service was actually given by the OPs for which complainant is entitled to get a relief and in such circumstances, such a relief should be given to the poorer sections of consumers otherwise consumer shall have to starve at the hand of the Forum.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.5,000/- against the OP2 and same is allowed ex parte against OP1
OPs are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire amount of the purchase amount of Rs.24,000/- to the complainant within one month and to take back the defective HITACHI Air Condition machine from the complainant on proper receipt within one month from the date of this order and if OPs jointly and severally fail to comply the order and fail to satisfy the decree in that case for non-compliance and disobedience of the Forum’s order a penal interest at the rateRs.3,000/- per month shall be assessed and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if, it is found that OPs are reluctant to comply the order in that case the penal action u/s.27 of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which they further imposed penalty and fine.
