Delhi

East Delhi

CC/277/2016

HARI PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GUPTA ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2019

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092

                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no           277/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  19/07/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 27/08/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          29/08/2019  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Hari Prasad 

S/o- Ram Singh   

R/o- 26/69 Gali no. 11,  

Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 32 ……………………..……….…Complainant                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Gupta Enterprises,      

26/26, 60 Futa Road,

Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara Delhi 32

 

2- M/s Hitachi Home & Life solutions    

802 A&B, Tower 2, 8^th Floor, Konnectus Building

Bhavbhuti Marg, Nr Minto Bridge,

Cannaught Place, New Delhi 110001..…………………………………Opponents

                                      

Complainant’s Advocate -                  Mr Ashwani Bhalla & Asso.  

Opponent’s 1                                        Authorised Agent

Opponent 2 Advocate                         Mr Prashant Arora c/o Kapoor & Co. Advo.

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh        President

                         Dr P N Tiwari                Member                                                                                                                    

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case -

  

Complainant purchased Hitachi AC 1.5 Ton from OP1 on 22/06/2014 for a sum of Rs 32500/- with one year standard warranty (Ex CW1/1), but after about one year of its functioning, developed cooling problem so complaint to OP2 on 22/05/2015 vide complaint no. 15052201301 which was checked by service engineer who told to get compressor changed within 02 days, but no one ever visited from OP2 even repeated lodging complaint as 15052201627 and 15052804227. When no service was provided, sent legal notice for replacing AC or refund the cost of AC a sum of Rs 32500/-(Ex CW1/2).

 

Proprietor of OP1 Mr Kapil Gupta submitted written statement and denied all the allegations against them. It was stated that OP1 being a dealer of the said product and had run almost one year had no problem. It was stated that OP2 as a manufacturer and service provider, so OP2 had to be responsible.

OP2/ manufacturer submitted written statement and denied all allegations put in complaint. It was admitted that the said AC was purchased from OP1 as per Ex CW1/1 and worked well up to 22/05/2015. On the complaint, their service engineer checked and rectified problem. As stated there was no manufacturing defect, so refund of the cost of the AC or replacing with new AC was refused. OP2 said stated AC had run without any defect for nearly one year of standard warranty, still complaint received on 22/05/2015 was promptly checked which was found running well, but had cooling problem which was due to gas and it was filled. OP2 cited reference of M/s Sushila Automobiles Ltd vs Dr Birendra Narain & others, 3 (2010) CPJ 130 NC, where it was laid down that in absence of any manufacturing defect by concrete evidence, product could not be replaced. Hence, there was no liability of OP2, but as one month was left in one year warranty, so would provide services free of cost till warranty exist. OP2 also disputed jurisdiction of present Forum. Hence OP2 had no further liability in refunding or replacing AC.

OP also relied  on  judgment of  N.C.  in ‘Shiv Prasad Paper Industries vs Senior Machinery Co’. I (2006) CPJ 92 NC, where it was held that ‘en equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired.’ Hence, in absence of manufacturing defect, there was no deficiency on part of OP2. 

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to both OPs and denied all the replies submitted. It was stated that the AC was a defective product and sold by OP1 so were responsible to replace. He also denied replies of OP2 as compressor had defect and OP2 had to replace or refund the cost of the AC. He also submitted evidences on his own affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in complaint and the said AC had manufacturing defect, but OP2 not replaced or refunded the cost.   

 

OP1 did not submit their evidence on record, but OP2 submitted evidences on affidavit through their authorised Representative Mr Roopesh Jain working with OP2 who affirmed that their all the products had standard one year warranty provided by manufacturer. So, complainant had failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the said AC. As there was no manufacturing defect, so no question for replacement of AC or refunding its cost.  

 

Arguments were heard and order was reserved after perusing material on record.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It was admitted by OP1 that the said AC was purchased by the complainant, but denied to have any manufacturing defect as it was checked and installed by their service engineer. It was also seen that there was no evidence of manufacturing defect. In absence of any concrete evidence from complainant, it is thus observed that the AC had no manufacturing defect. OP1 being the seller so had no liability.

 

Before coming to the conclusion, we have perused some citations as under-

 1-Tata Motors vs Deepak Goyal, RP 2309/2008NC,

2-Vikram Bajaj vs Hind Motors India Ltd & others, 2009IICLT 670 NC,

3-Kamal Kishore vs Electronics Corporation of India, RP 3029/2010 NC,

where it lay down that “replacement was only done if manufacturing defect was proved by expert report or seen evidently”.

 

As AC was manufactured by OP2 and had one month warranty left, so providing service liability on OP2 only under warranty terms and conditions. No manufacturing defect was proved by complainant by any evidence. We direct OP2 to provide services and rectify defects if any. If any defective part was to be required shall replace the part and charge as per rules. OP2 will also extend warranty of three months from the date of handing over the AC in good working condition and not charge for any service rendered. There shall be no order to cost.  

 

 

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20 (1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                   Shri Sukhdev Singh

            Member                                                                                                                   President