Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/591/2016

Abha Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hitachi Air Conditioner - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Puri Adv.

03 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	591/2016
Date of Institution	:	12.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	03/05/2017

 

                                       

                                               

 

Abha Puri w/o Sh.Anil Puri r/o H.No.1291, Second Floor, Sector 37-B, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Hitachi Air Conditioner, Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi, District Mehsana, Gurjat, India.

 

2.     Hitachi Air Conditioner, 9^th Floor, Abhijeet Mithakhali  Six Roads, Ahmdabad -380006.

 

3.     M/s Surindra Digital Home, SCO No.366, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 Sh.Anil Puri, Adv. for the complainant

                 Sh.Saurah Garg, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

                 OP No.3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased two Hitachi Split ACs after availing the finance from Bajaj Finance Ltd. from OP No.3 vide invoice Nos.221 and 222 both dated 30.04.2016 for Rs.43,500/- each (Annexure C-1 and C-2). It has further been averred that one of the ACs stopped functioning after 2-3 days of its installation and started shelling ice with a lot of voice and stopped functioning.  On her complaint sent through e-mail (Annexure C-3), the AC was replaced by the dealer after vigorous follow up with the Company as well as the dealer.  However, after a few days, the second AC also started giving problem and she logged the complaint with the Company vide Annexure C-4 and even requested the dealer vide Annexure C-5 to look into the matter personally.  On 02.06.2016, the service engineer of the company informed the complainant that the fan as well as condenser of the AC was defective. It has further been averred that she sent numerous reminders/e-mails (Annexure C-6 and C-9) to the company as well as the dealer but no action was taken to replace the defective AC.   However, she received a message from the service center that the complaint was closed to which she responded and requested for replacement of the defective model.  It has further been averred that the ACs supplied to the complainant were old models & defective pieces and after spending huge amount, she could not enjoy the comfort and she had to sleep at such a hot weather.   Finally, she got served a legal notices (Annexures C-10 to C-12) separately upon all the OPs requiring them to replace the defective AC supplied to her but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 have admitted the factum of the purchase of the ACs by the complainant from OP No.3. It has further been pleaded that they never failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant and has always taken due and necessary care while providing services to the complainant. It has further been pleaded that by filing the present complaint, the complainant aims to create a bold impression of himself and to get mileage in the society she resides and conducts business at the cost of the repute of OP No.1 and 2 and to tarnish their image. It has been denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the product in question. All the remaining allegations made in the complaint have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.09.2016.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         From the perusal of the documentary evidence especially the complaints made through e-mails and the legal notice served by the complainant upon the OPs shows that the complainant started facing problem in the ACs after few days of its purchase. Pertinently, the OPs had changed one of the defective ACs of the complainant.  A perusal of e-mail dated 03.06.2016(Annexure C-4) reveals that the complainant has specifically brought to the notice of the OPs that the fan and condenser of the AC was found to be defective as per the visit of the engineer on 02.06.2016 against the complaint lodged with the service center.  Thereafter, the complainant exchanged a number of e-mails (Annexures C-5 to C-9) with the OPs and even got served a legal notice upon the OPs but they did not bother to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant within the warranty period.  Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that non-rendering of the promised services within the warranty period itself amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
6.         From the perusal of the complaint, it seems that the complainant is more inclined towards the replacement/refund of the AC, in question, than its repairs. However, the law on the point is well settled that if the defect(s) can be set right by repair/replacement of part(s), there is no need to replace the machine as a whole.  As such, we are of the view that the complainant cannot be granted the relief of replacement of the AC at this stage.
7.         The complainant has purchased the AC, in question, after spending the huge amount of Rs.43,500/- for the comfort of her family members but due to the problems aforesaid she could not enjoy the same and as such she certainly suffered mental agony and physical harassment on this count.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

1. To repair the AC, in question, of the complainant, free of cost, by replacing the defective part(s), if any.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of directions as mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (iii).

9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                          sd/-                  sd/-

Announced	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
03/05/2017	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER