Punjab

Moga

CC/16/127

Harpal Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Green Dust - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Iqbal Singh

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 127 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 27.07.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 21.12.2016

 

Harpal Mittal, aged about __ years son of Sh. Ram Nath, resident of Aara Road, Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Green Dust, Maha Laxmi Electronics, Aara Road, Opp. Civil Hospital, Moga.

 

2.       Green Dust, Khasra no.337, Ist Floor, Choudhary Satbir Complex, Near CRC-2, Sultanpur MG Road, New Delhi - 110030.

 

3.       Hitachi & Company, 207 Ascot Centre, Next to Hilton Hotel, Saharf Rao, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400092.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Iqbal Singh, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                    Sh. Arun Gupta, Authorized Representative for opposite party nos.1 and 2.

                   Opposite party no.3 ex-parte.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Green Dust, Maha Laxmi Electronics, Aara Road, Opp. Civil Hospital, Moga and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to replace the AC of the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.49,999.99p i.e. price of the AC. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and deficient services to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased AC make Hitachi Split 2 QTR Hitachi ACE inverter Cool Split worth Rs. 49,999.99p from opposite party no.1 vide invoice no.2016-17/63 dated 09.06.2016. The AC was installed in a lobby of the house of the complainant. It was assured by opposite parties that the said AC is fit for proper cooling and will consume very less consumption and there will be no problem. However, just after some days, the complainant noticed that the said AC is consuming very much consumption. The said AC was consuming 13.6 A to 15.00 ampares. However, it is mentioned in power features and technical specification of the purchased model online that maximum current draw is 11.59 ampares, whereas the said AC was consuming excess electricity. There is a manufacturing defect in the said AC, as the same consume very high electricity and did not give proper cooling. The complainant approached opposite parties several times, but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties. A legal notice was also served to opposite parties and an evasive reply was issued by opposite parties. The service rendered by the opposite parties is thus deficient one and the complainant has been harassed unnecessarily without any fault. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through authorized Representative and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the same is gross abuse of process of law; there is no deficiency in service at the hands of opposite parties; the present complaint suffers from concealment of basic facts; the present complaint is not maintainable against opposite party nos. 1 & 2, as the product in question is under D-1 (OEM) Original Equipment Manufacturer Warrantee; the present complaint suffers from mis-joinder of parties, as opposite party nos.1 & 2 are not necessary parties. In parawise reply, it has been submitted that no technician or technical official ever visited the premises, where the AC was to be installed. Had it been so either by the answering opposite parties or by the OEM Hitachi both of would have declined to install 2 ton Air Conditioner for an area of 500 sq. feet. As the technical specification for areas specified are :-

a)       1 Ton Refrigerating Capacity Air Conditioner will cool down an area of 120 to 140 sq. feet.

b)      1.5 Ton Refrigerating Capacity Air Conditioner will cool down an area of 150 to 180 sq. feet.

c)       2 Ton Refrigerating Capacity Air Conditioner will cool down an area of 180 to 240 sq. feet.

                   Further submitted that no extra performance other than the user manual has been committed by the answering opposite parties. So far the cooling aspect is concerned at one and all time an Air Conditioner of 2 ton Refrigerating Capacity is concerned, the same can only cool an area upto 240 sq. feet and any area beyond that would not fall within ambit of the capacity of the said Air Conditioner. Further submitted that the customer was duty bound to avail the free of cost installation facility being provided by OEM whereas in the present case, the customer opted for installation from outside agency. Further submitted that a notice from the advocate of consumer has been issued on 23.06.2016 and the same stands replied on 08.07.2016. Further no service was availed by the customer from the answering opposite parties as the answering opposite parties upon receipt of the call of customer has forwarded the said call to the Original Equipment Manufacturer i.e. opposite  party no.3 namely Hitachi for its redressal as the case was under OEM warrantee. The ticket so generated being ticket no.GD-Mog-66472. There never arose any occasion for the customer to raise any claim against the answering opposite parties as the product being under OEM Warrantee. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Notice issued for the service of opposite party no.3 received back with report 'refusal'. As such, opposite party no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

6.                On the other hand, Sh. Arun Gupta, Authorized Representative of opposite party nos.1 & 2 tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit of Ex.OP-1,2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1, 2/2 to Ex.OP-1, 2/6 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as Representative of opposite party nos. 1 & 2 and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased AC make Hitachi Split 2 QTR Hitachi ACE inverter Cool Split worth Rs. 49,999.99p from opposite party no.1 vide invoice no.2016-17/63 dated 09.06.2016. The AC was installed in a lobby of the house of the complainant. It was assured by opposite parties that the said AC is fit for proper cooling and will consume very less consumption and there will be no problem. However, just after some days, the complainant noticed that the said AC is consuming very much consumption. The said AC was consuming 13.6 A to 15.0 amperes. However, it is mentioned in power features and technical specification of the purchased model online that maximum current draw is 11.59 amperes, whereas the said AC was consuming excess electricity. The complainant approached opposite parties several times, but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties. A legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties, but to no effect.

9.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, Representative for opposite party nos.1 & 2 argued that no technician or technical official ever visited the premises, where the AC was to be installed. Had it been so either by the answering opposite parties or by the OEM Hitachi both of would have declined to install 2 ton Air Conditioner for an area of 500 sq. feet. Further argued that no extra performance other than the user manual has been committed by the answering opposite parties. So far the cooling aspect is concerned at one and all time an Air Conditioner of 2 ton Refrigerating Capacity can only cool an area upto 240 sq. feet and any area beyond that would not fall within ambit of the capacity of the said Air Conditioner. Further argued that the customer was duty bound to avail the free of cost installation facility being provided by OEM whereas in the present case, the complainant opted for installation from outside agency. Further no service was availed by the customer from the answering opposite parties as the answering opposite parties upon receipt of the call of customer has forwarded the said call to the Original Equipment Manufacturer i.e. opposite  party no.3 namely Hitachi for its redressal as the case was under OEM warrantee. The ticket so generated being ticket no.GD-Mog-66472. There never arose any occasion for the customer to raise any claim against the answering opposite parties as the product being under OEM Warrantee. The present complaint may be dismissed.

10.              We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments lead by ld. Counsel for both the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased AC in dispute from opposite party nos. 1 & 2, which is manufactured by opposite party no.3. As alleged by the complainant, the grievances of the complainant is that the said AC consumes very much excessive electricity and does not give proper cooling. On it, opposite party nos.1 & 2 submitted that AC of two Ton capacity can cool down area of 240 sq. Feet. Whereas, the complainant installed the AC in question in hall of 500 sq. feet. So, the AC of two Ton capacity cannot cool down this much area. They argued that on the complaint of the complainant, the service engineer of opposite party no.3 visited the premises of complainant vide service ticket, copy of same is Ex.OP-1,2/6 vide this service ticket, the representative of the company visited the premises of the complainant on 20.06.2016 and observed that the AC in question is installed in area of 340 sq. feet, which was very much larger than the specification. So, it is not giving proper cooling. The complainant himself did not deny this fact that the AC in question is installed in a bigger room. The second grievance of the complainant is that the AC in question is consuming very excess electricity than the technical specification given by opposite parties. As per specification the AC in question consume maximum current drawn 11.59 amperes, whereas it is consuming 13.6 to 15.0 Amperes. To prove this fact the complainant has not produced any evidence or technical report that AC in question is consuming excess electricity than the specification given by the opposite parties. So, in these circumstances, the complainant failed to prove his case.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we found no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 21.12.2016.

 

                               (Bhupinder Kaur)                 (Vinod Bala)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                              Member                President