BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.164/15.

Date of instt.: 03.08.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 18.03.2016.

Sunil Rana, Advocate S/o Sh. Teerth Pal Rana, r/o H.No.1298/11, Model Town, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

1. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, Distt. Mehsana-382727 (Gujrat).

2. Modern Electronics, Park Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Vishal Digani, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Lovneet Bindlish, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1

Op No.2 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Window Air Conditioner of Hitachi Company from Op No.2 vide bill No.18899 dt. 11.04.2013 for the sum of Rs.25,000/-.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the aforesaid A.C. was not functioning well and it became faulty within the warranty period.  It is further alleged that the complainant made complaint to Op No.2, who suggested the complainant to call on toll free number.  It is further alleged that the complainant made several complaints on toll free number and the mechanic of company came at the house of complainant and tried to remove the defects and told the complainant that the compressor of the A.C. is not functioning well and so that there is many problems in A.C. and the A.C. is not giving cooling well.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops for repair/replacement of said A.C. but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 18.09.2015.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the Op No.1 is an Indian Subsidiary of World Renowned Japanese Home Appliances giant ‘Hitachi’ through its 100% subsidiary ‘Hitachi Home & Life Solutions Inc., Japan which has gathered a lot of goodwill in India and holds almost the highest repudiation in the manufacturing of A.Cs. in the market of India and whose motto is to provide the best services to their customers.  The Op No.1 has never failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant and has always taken due and necessary care while providing services to the complainant; that the alleged unit in question is required to be checked by the proper analysis/test by the appropriate laboratory as per the Section 13 (1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Mark CA and closed evidence on 17.03.2016.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed evidence on 17.03.2016.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     From the pleadings and evidence available on the file, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Window Air Conditioner of Hitachi Company from Op No.2 vide bill No.18899 dt. 11.04.2013 for the sum of Rs.25,000/-.  The complainant alleges that since the beginning of purchase of the aforesaid A.C., it was not functioning well and it became faulty within the warranty period.  It is further stated that the complainant made complaint to Op No.2, who suggested the complainant to call on Toll free number.  He further stated that the complainant made several complaints on the toll free number and the mechanic of company came at the house of complainant and tried to remove the defects and he told the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the A.C. and the A.C. was to be replaced with new one.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1 and copy of bill, Mark-A.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 alleges in reply that the Op No.1 is an Indian Subsidiary of World Renowned Japanese Home Appliances giant ‘Hitachi’ through its 100% subsidiary ‘Hitachi Home & Life Solutions Inc., Japan which has gathered a lot of goodwill in India and holds almost the highest repudiation in the manufacturing of A.Cs. in the market of India and whose motto is to provide the best services to their customers.    

6.     On appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that the A.C. purchased by the complainant from the Op No.2 became defective within the warranty period.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for repair/replacement of said A.C. but the Ops did not do so.  These contentions of complainant are supported by affidavit.  On the other hand, the Ops have not placed any evidence that the A.C. was not having any manufacturing defect.  So, we found no force in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Op No.1.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the said A.C. is having manufacturing defect.  Hence, we found that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective A.C. with new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant vide bill no.18899 dt. 11.04.2013.  However, it is made clear that if the said A.C. as purchased by the complainant is not available with the Ops, then the Ops are directed to refund Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) as cost of said A.C.  The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.18.03.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.