Consumer Complaint No.62/2016
Date of filing: 07.04.2016 Date of disposal: 10.07.2017
Complainant :Abhijit Chatterjee, S/o.Jishnu chatterjee, resident of Vill.-Gopinathpur,
nearHanuman Mandir, P.O.-Durgapur-11, P.S.-Coke Oven, Durgapur,
Dist.-Burdwan.
Opposite Party: 1. The Manager, Great Eastern Trading Company, Durgapur Branch, Benachiti Road, Bhiringi More, Opposite Honda Show Room, P.O.-Durgapur-13, O.S.-Coke-oven, Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan.
2. The regional Manager, Hitachi Home & Life Solution (I) Ltd., Flat-9B, 9th floor, Poonam Building, 5/2 Russel Street, Kolkata-700 071.
3. The Manager, Service Centre, M/s. Paul Enterprise, Benachity, Durgapur-13, Burdwan.
4. Purvi Trivedi, Hitachi Customer Care, Hitachi Home & life Solution(I) Ltd., 9th floor, Abhijeet, Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad District, Gujrat-380006, India.
5. The General Manager/Chairman (Head office works) Hitachi Home &
Life Solution (I) Ltd., Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, Dist.-Mehsana-382727, Gujrat, India.
6. Mr. Subho Das, (Area Manager), BE-10/2 (near Arati Cinemas) Jyangra,
D.B. Nagar, Rajarhat Road, Kolkata-700 059.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Mrinmoy Sinha.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: None.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2 to 6: Ld. Advocate Santi Ranjan Hazra.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to replace the AC Machine by a new one or to pay Rs. 51,000/-, the cost of AC Machine along with 12% interest, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s short case is that he purchased one Inverter Split Air Condition Indoor Machine vide model No.RAS 0191VEA with a capacity of 1.5 tons and one Inverter Split Air Condition Outdoor Machine vide model No.RAS 0191VEA with a capacity of 1.5 tons against invoice No.33/SA/1516/01014 amounting to Rs.51,000/- only on May 23, 2015 manufactured by the O.ps. After few days from the date of purchase several defects were found which was nothing but inherent manufacturing defects and the defects were; remote of the said machine did not work properly, cooling capacity was not up to the mark etc. and the defects were well known to the O.Ps. The complainant intimated the said defects to the O.Ps. by mail on 24.8.2015 (within three months from the date of purchase) and demanded to replace the same. But no reply from the other side was received by the complainant except that the customer care of the O.Ps. informed that the Field Team, Burdwan shall attend very shortly, but before January 30, 2016, no one attended.
On January 30, 2016 Mr. Rajat Das a person from the service centre of the O.Ps. visited the house of the complainant and inspected the said machine. It was detected that the machine had problem, but failed to detect the actual problem and this happened two to three times. The complainant verbally requested all the O.ps. on several occasions for replacement and/or some alternative way out but to no effect.
After long persuasion the O.ps. sent an expert to detect the defects and after inspection he defects were detected and tried to be removed, but the expert badly failed to do so. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acts and activities of the O.Ps. the complainant filed this
case before this Ld. Forum for relief.
The O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 have contested this case jointly by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the complaint is not maintainable and the claim of the complainant is barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels, acquiescence and/to resjudicata and/ or principles analogous thereto and the instant complaint is harrassive, malafide, false and frivolous one. It has been further stated by these O.Ps. that these O.ps. vehemently disputes and denies the allegations raised by the complainant and states that upon inspection by the representative of the O.ps. it was found that there was no inherent manufacturing defect as uttered by the complainant, only the remote was having problem which was replaced and/or changed on the day of inspection itself, i.e., January, 30, 2016 and while inspecting the said AC machine it was observed if IDU PCB/Display PCB/Remote is changed the machine will be okay and the said machine does not require to be replaced. It is further stated that thereafter when the O.Ps. received complaint with respect to the said AC machine from the complainant for the second time the O.ps. sent their representative to attend the complaint, but the complainant abruptly resisted the representative to let in, but for the reasons best known the complainant suppressed the fact before this Ld. Forum while filing the instant complaint. It is also stated that again when the representative, namely Mr. Suvro Das being the O.P. No.6 and Mr. Moni went to the house of the complainant on May 12, 2016 for repairing the defect the complainant did not give then access stating that since the complainant had filed a complaint the ld. Forum shall decide the fate of the said AC machine. The O.Ps. further states that the only moto of the complainant was replacement of the non-defective machine with a new one.
These O.ps. further stated they denied the contention of the complainant and states that the complainant has declared the said machine defective on his own without any documentary support and on the basis of such claim has asked for compensation and litigation costs which has no basis or substance. These also stated that the complainant has filed the complaint without any cause of action and as such the complainant are not entitled to any compensation at all. Save as aforesaid all the allegations are disputed and denied.
DECISION WITH REASON
Perused all the papers submitted by the complainant and the O.Ps. on affidavit as evidence. The complainant raised several allegations about the defective AC machine during the proceeding of the case the complainant preferred for appointment of an expert to detect any inherent manufacturing defect. But the application was not made properly. From the end of the Forum the complainant was asked to resubmit the application for appointment of an expert in the proper form. But the complainant did not appear and still the date of hearing argument the complainant did not appear and contest the case. On the other hand the O.Ps. contested the case and told the Forum that as there was no inherent manufacturing defect in the said AC machine, so the O.ps. are ready to repair the said AC Machine. From the written version of the O.Ps. it is evident that the complainant did not give permission to the O.Ps. to enter his premises for repairing the said AC Machine. So, they are unable to repair the said machine. The O.ps. also stated that they are still now ready to repair the said machine if they were permitted to enter into the complainant’s premises.
As the complainant did not contest the case by participating in the hearing argument, so the intent of the complainant is not understood by this Forum. So, the complainant loses his case. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the consumer complaint being No.62/2016 is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.2 to 6 and exparte against the O.P. No.1 without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Dictated and corrected by me. Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
