BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.242 of 2019
Date of Instt. 04.07.2019
Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
Avneet Kaur aged 58 years W/o Inderjit Singh R/o 816, Rishi Nagar, Near Urban Estate Phase-II, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Regd. Office at 9th Floor, Abhijeet-1, Mithakali Six Road, Navrangpur, Ahmedabad- 380006, Gujrat, India controlled by Johnson. Through its CEO.
2. EP Electronics Paradise Pvt. Ltd., K-27, Ugyog Nagar, Near Maruti Showroom, Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi, Delhi-110041. Through its Proprietor/Managing Director/CEO.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. H. K. Chopra, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased refrigerator R-VG720PND5 online from OP No.2, on 03.02.2018 for Rs.91,500/- Serial No.2170800026 vide cash Memo No.07A0030955504412 dated 03.02.2018. The product is manufactured by OP No.1 and has been sold by OP No.2. The said product of the OPs started troubling the complainant within few days from the purchase of the same. The cooling of the product was not up-to mark and there was smell arising out of the product. The complainant contacted the OPs through the consumer care No.079711-29100 & 1860-25848484 and they declared the product as OK. Then again the product started giving trouble in refrigeration, freezer was full of ice inside it on all the sides of the product. Lower part of the product was full of moisture and water drops were all over the utensils inside the refrigerator. The matter was complained to OPs, through family members of the complainant and complainant. Technician from OPs visited the premises and physically handled the product by placing hardboard and tiles under the product. The product was not working properly, the second technician again visited the premises of the complainant and declared that it was big refrigerator and that the refrigerator of the similar size are creating similar troubles. He further told that atmosphere was not congenial for the product in India and nobody can help the complainant. Thereafter complaints were made by the complainant to the complaint centre at Batala, New Delhi and Hyderabad. However, no step has been taken by any of the Service Station till date. The product of the OPs is defective one. As per the warranty condition the product was to be repaired or replaced, if any defect is reported within one year from the purchase by the original purchaser. The Refrigerator in question has started giving deficit service to the complainant within one year of its purchase and the same is till date with the original purchaser the complainant. The OPs failed to provide proper service and has been negligent in providing the required services. Furthermore, it has been declared by the very technician of OP that the product is not fit for atmosphere in India. The product is not use worthy and the same is liable to be returned to OPs and sale price is liable to be refund to the complainant. The OPs were aware of the defect of the product and has intentionally sold the same to the complainant and the complainant has spent huge amount to the tune of Rs.91,500/- and has further suffered harassment and mental agony, economic loss due to the defective product and negligent services on the part of OPs. The complainant got served a legal notice upon both the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the payment of Rs.91,500/- with interest @12% p.a. to the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental stress, strain, tension and mental agony for selling defective product to the consumer.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but after elapsing of more than 30 days, the regd. Cover of OP No.2 has not been received back and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that present complaint is an abuse of process of law and not maintainable as complainant has approached this Forum by concocting false facts and suppressing material facts. The Complainant is guilty of ‘suppresioveri' and ‘suggestiofalse’. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone within compensatory costs in favour of the answering OP. It is further averred that the averments made in the complaint are vague, baseless and without any substance with malafide intentmade misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in Refrigerator and wrongly asserted deficiency in service of OP No.1. It is further averred that the consumer can only claim repairing of the product if permissible under the terms of service contract or warranty. There is no manufacturing defect in the Refrigerator purchased by the complainant nor any deficiency in service of the OP No.1. Hence, the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be dismissed with costs. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of Refrigerator by the complainant from the OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.91,500/- on 03.02.2018 with one year warranty is admitted. It is also admitted that after few days of its purchase, the cooling of the product was not upto the mark and the complainant contacted the OP and made a complaint through customer care and it is also admitted that the technician of the OPs attended the complaint of the complainant and inspected the product and declared the product OK, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has proved that he has purchased a Refrigerator online from the OP No.2 for Rs.91,500/- as per Invoice Ex.C-1 on 03.02.2018. The complainant has alleged that after few days of its purchase, the cooling of the product was not upto the mark and he contacted the OP and made a complaint through customer care. This fact has been admitted by the OP in written statement also. It has been proved that the technician of the OPs attended the complaint and inspected the product and declared the product OK, but the grudge of the complainant remained as it is as the product started giving trouble again. Lower part of the product was full of moisture and water drops were there inside the Refrigerator. Again he contacted the OP and the OP inspected the product and found that the Refrigerator is not being used properly by the complainant, whereas the complainant has alleged that the technician of the OP declared that it was a big Refrigerator and that the Refrigerator of similar size are creating similar troubles.
7. The complainant has proved on record the emails and the images attached with the emails alleging the problem he was facing with the Refrigerator on 30.08.2018 at different times, which have been proved as Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 is the reply given by the OP. Ex.C-4 is the track record of the complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant has filed on record the CD also to show the working of the Refrigerator, which were being faced by the complainant. The complainant has also proved on record the warranty card Ex.C-11. The complainant has also proved on record the comments of the different persons from different places regarding the function of Refrigerator purchased by the complainant. Perusal of all these comments Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-23 show that the people purchasing the Refrigerator online are not satisfied with the product purchased of Hitachi company, which is a known brand. The working of the Refrigerators is alleged to be the worst in these comments.
8. The OP on the other hand has alleged that the warranty is for one year and that is only with regard to repair of any defect in free of cost. It has been alleged by the OP that as per the terms, the OP is not liable or responsible for any defect to product caused by the external factors i.e. overload of electricity power fluctuation, short circuit, faulty or improper wiring, improper installation, natural calamity including atmospheric conditions.
9. In the written statement, in para No.3, it has been alleged that the technician found that the Refrigerator is not being used properly by the complainant and advised the complainant not to keep it at the highest temperature/degree that she is keeping it at the highest temperature/degree to which in moisture generates inside it in rainy season and she was advised to set the temperature, but this contention and excuse of the OPs cannot be believed and relied upon as the OP has nowhere alleged that there was any external factor due to which there was malfunctioning of the Refrigerator. If for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the complainant was keeping the Refrigerator at high temperature and was not keeping correct temperature, then it was the duty of the technician to set the Refrigerator on a right/correct temperature with correct settings, but this was never done by the technician of the OP. The OP cannot escape from its liability by saying that the temperature was not set by the complainant right. No other external factor leading to the malfunctioning of the Refrigerator has been alleged by the OP. This clearly shows that there was some manufacturing defect. More so, the contention of the complainant has been supported by the number of the comments of number of persons who have purchased the Refrigerator of Hitachi company, therefore, there is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as despite the defects, they have been selling the defective product to the customers/consumers and they are misleading by saying that the complainant is not keeping the temperature correct. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the payment of Rs.91,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization. Further, OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
20.03.2024 Member Member President
