SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P. Act, 2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where the OP No.1 is the Great Eastern Appliances Private Limited, Balasore, OP No.2 is the Freeze & Freeze, Balasore, OP No.3 is the Johnson Control Hitachi Home and Life Solution India Limited, Bhubaneswar, OP No.4 is the Great Eastern Appliance Private Limited, Bhubaneswar at Khurda and OP No.5 is the Johnson Controls, Hitachi Air Conditioning, India Limited, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.   

2.         The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 06.10.2018, he has purchased one Hitachi double door refrigerator for an amount of Rs.31,790/-. Since 24.06.2020, during the warranty period, the complainant used to face some problem with the refrigerator such as no cooling. He lodged a complaint to the service centre, who in turn changed the compressor and the complainant paid Rs.4,050/- as service charges. It is further stated that on 10.07.2020, the complainant faced the same problem with the refrigerator. On being informed, the mechanic of the Ops came and rectified the issue. Again on 24.07.2020, the complainant faced the same problem as before, but till date the Ops have not provided any solutions. Thereafter, the complainant had contacted the Ops, but they did not cooperate with him and intentionally neglected, rather, they harassed and cheated him. The complainant had tried himself to contact the Ops in several times and sought their help, but the Ops did not respond to it. Thus, the complainant served legal notice upon the Ops on 12.08.2020, but no reply is received from them. The Ops thereby committed deficiency in service.     

            The cause of action of this case arose on 12.08.2020, when the complainant served legal notice against the Ops. Thus, the complainant was constrained to file the present case. Hence, this case.

            To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -

1. Photocopy of goods purchase receipt.
2. Photocopy of money receipt of service center.
3. Photocopy of Advocate notice dated 12.08.2020.
4. Photocopy of complaints given to customer care service and e-mails. 

3.         In the instant case, the notices were issued against the Ops. The OP No.1, 2 & 4 did not appear and hence, they were set ex parte. Only OP No.3 & 5 were appeared and contested the case. Their written version was not accepted, as the same was filed beyond the statutory period.

4.         The complainant has submitted that on 06.10.2018, he has purchased one Hitachi double door refrigerator @ Rs.31,790/-. During the warranty period i.e. since 24.06.2020, the refrigerator of the complainant though was running, but not cooling. It is further submitted that the complainant made a complaint to the service centre and the service centre changed the compressor and demanded Rs.4,050/- as service charge to which the complainant paid. Again on 10.07.2020, the complainant faced the same problem with the refrigerator and the complainant lodged complaint and the mechanic of the Ops came and rectified the issue. It is urged by the complainant that on 24.07.2020, the complainant faced the same problem again as before. Although the complainant lodged complaint, till date the Ops have not provided any solutions. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Ops, but they did not extend their helping hand, thereby they intentionally neglected him and for their above acts, the complainant suffered mentally harassment and the Ops have cheated him. Thereafter, the complainant tried his best to contact the Ops in several times and sought their help, but the Ops did not respond to it. Thus, the complainant served legal notice upon the Ops on 12.08.2020, but no reply is received from them. Lastly, it is submitted that deficiency in service against the Ops is clearly attributed.

5.         On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting Ops argued that these Ops, being the company, deals with consumer durables compressor items like window AC, split AC, commercial AC, Refrigerators and their company provides services through a large network of authorized service centres and well qualified technicians and is being widened in order to bring maximum and efficient services to the customer’s doorsteps. That apart, toll free helpline number has also been provided to the customers for attending any service & repairs. It is further argued that the products carries a warranty for a period of one year and the compressor carries a warranty for a period of five years. Therefore, any damage to the product, or any of the terms and conditions of the warranty policy is violated or the warranty period is expired, then they warranty policy be automatically void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis, to be paid by the customers. It is further submitted that these Ops have sent their technician to the premises of the complainant on their behalf immediately after receipt of complaint from him, but he did not allow the technician to his premises. The Ops have contacted the complainant on his mobile bearing No.9658886830, but he did not respond to the call, which proved itself that he did not want to get his product repair. That apart, the complainant also did not respond the letter of the Ops dated 03.12.2021 seeking visit to the complainant’s premises to resolve the issue, but he did not respond. It is specifically submitted that the complainant did not satisfy the Commission that the product has got any manufacturing defect nor any deficiency in service on behalf of the present Ops. The complainant has not produced adequate evidence supported by the opinion or report of an expert technical to show that the product suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, the present Ops have not caused any deficiency in service towards the complainant. On behalf of the present Ops, one photocopy of the Refrigerator Warranty Card and one photocopy of letter dated 03.12.2021 addressed to the complainant are produced. The same are marked as Annexure-A & B respectively.  

6.         From the above rival submissions of both the parties, it is clear that the complainant had purchased one Hitachi refrigerator from the OP No.1 (vide Annexure-1), who is none but the dealer under the OP No.3 & 5 and OP No.2 is their authorized service centre and OP No.4 is also said to be a dealer under OP No.3 & 5. The main crux of the lis is that the refrigerator of the complainant meet with defect for no cooling, not only once but also thrice; first on 24.06.2020 which was rectified by the OP No.2 (vide Annexure-2), then on 10.07.2020 which was also rectified by the OP No.2 and lastly on 24.07.2020, the defect of which was not rectified. Annexure-4 series makes it clear that the complainant has informed the Ops through e-mail dated 28.07.2020, 29.07.2020, 30.07.2020 & 01.08.2020. But it is the only e-mail reply dated 30.07.2020 from the Ops, wherein apologize has been called for from the side of Ops and further assured the complainant to kindly allow their service team to get back to him with a resolution in the shortest possible time and nothing more. On the other hand, the letter of the Ops dated 03.12.2021 (vide Annexure-B) sent to the complainant reflects as follows –

              “We are in receipt of summons in Case No.55/2021 from the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Balasore, regarding grievance of your product Double Door Refrigerator, which was purchased by you on 6^th December 2018 and present matter listed on 16^th December 2021 for further proceeding.

              In this context, we have contacted to many times for conducting visit at your premises to check disputed AC however you denied for technician visit to your premises to check said Refrigerator and refused to do repair of said Refrigerator and adamant for refund of purchased amount of said refrigerator without any justifiable cause despite of it we are still ready to repair your product.

              You are kindly requested to revert to this letter in writing stating appointment date and time for resolving your issue and conducting maintenance work of your machine within 5 days of receipt of this letter.

              Please contact our local representative for any further clarification.”

            From the aforesaid letter of the Ops, it is crystal clear that they have been acted upon just after receipt of notice in this case. Not a single document is produced to show that they have ever acted upon after receipt of e-mail messages from the complainant. Not only once, but also the complainant sent e-mails to the Ops in several times. Since 24.07.2020, the complainant awaited expecting that his refrigerator could have been repaired by the Ops at any moment and sent messages one after another to the Ops, but the Ops played a hide and seek game with the complainant and after receipt of notice from this Commission, the Ops have so acted that they have no fault of their own and ready to repair the product at any time, rather, to blame the complainant on the ground that he did not allow the technician to enter into his premises for repair of the product. But, to prove their activeness, in this context, not a single document is produced to show that their technician had ever been to the premises of the complainant and the date of his visit and the name of the technician so also the report of the technician that he had been to the premises of the complainant for repairing, but did not allow him to do the same. So, only bald statement not supported with any documentary evidence, cannot by itself proves that the Ops have never committed any deficiency of service towards the complainant.

            The customers purchased the valuable products from the company on good faith with a hope that their product is to be repaired as and when it became out of order either manufacturing defect or otherwise. But in the present case, even after complaint has been lodged regarding defect of the refrigerator, the Ops slept over the matter since 24.07.2020 till receipt of notice in this case. In case the complainant is not approached this Commission and notice is not received by the Ops, can a prudent man believe that the Ops would repair the product of the complainant? When the Ops found to have not provided any service to the complainant and guilty for discharging their duties which ought to have been performed by them, the submission of the learned counsel for the Ops that onus of the complainant to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the report of an expert technician that his product suffered from manufacturing defect, cannot be accepted. Thus, the plea, as taken by the Ops in their letter vide Annexure-B, is nothing but an afterthought.

            From the above, it is clearly made out that the Ops No.2, 3 & 5 have not provided proper and sufficient services towards the complainant to make his refrigerator repaired and thereby deficiency in service on their part is attributed. From the above discussion, this Commission is not satisfied with the submissions of the Ops No.3 & 5, rather constrained to hold that the Ops No.2, 3 & 5 have jointly and severally committed deficiency in service in providing proper service to get the refrigerator of the complainant in good condition. From the above acts of the Ops No.2, 3 & 5, sustaining of harassment and mental agony by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for, in the complaint petition.

            Hence, it is ordered –

O   R   D   E   R

            The case of the complainant is allowed on contest against the OP No.3 & 5 and on ex parte against the OP No.2 and the case is dismissed against OP No.1 & 4. The OPs No.2, 3 & 5 are hereby jointly and severally set liable for their deficiency of service as under:-

1. The OP No.3 & 5 are hereby directed to replace the Refrigerator of the complainant with a brand new Refrigerator of same specification or its available above specification model  or to pay Rs.31,500/- towards cost of the above mentioned Refrigerator of the complainant along with interest @ 12.00 % P.A. from the date of cause of action (12/08/2020), till date of actual payment by the OP No.3 & 5 to the complainant.
2. The OP No.3 & 5 are further directed to pay, along with aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for both mental agony & harassment and litigation expenses, to the complainant.
3. The OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.4,050/- towards service charges as paid by the complainant to the OP No.2 along with interest @ 12.00 % P.A. from the date of payment (07/07/2020), till date of actual payment by the OP No.2 to the complainant.

            All the aforesaid amounts will be paid by the OPs No.2, 3 & 5 to the complainant within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of this order.

            That deferment in any manner / mode / reason / step for compliance of this order, the OPs No.2, 3 & 5, shall carry an additional interest of @ 6.00% P.A., upon Order No. 1 to 3, payable by the defaulter OPs to the complainant.

            In case of failure by any of the OPs to comply any of the orders as above mentioned, within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the defaulter OPs as per the prevailing law.

            Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 9^th day of October, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.