Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/233/2017

FAHEEM TAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

HITACHI HOME - Opp.Party(s)

SHAFIQ AHMD WANI

19 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

                (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No                 390/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution   :    02-01-2017

 Date of Decision      :   07-05-2018

Faheem Tak,

S/O Wazir Ahmed Tak,

R/O H.NO.233,Channi Himmat Rama,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                              Complainant

                         V/S

1.Hitachi Home &  Life Selections (India)Ltd.

Hitachi Complex,Karan Nagar,Kadi,District

Mehsana-382727,Gujarat,through Director.

2.Hitachi Service Centre,38-A Extension,

   Gandhi Nagar (Mini Market Green Belt Park)Jammu.

3.Sahil Brother & CO.Authorised Dealer,Hitachi,

54-New Mohinder Nagar,Canal Road,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                              Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary             (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                          Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Shafiq Ahmed Wani,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Maninder Kapoor,Advocate for Ops 1&2,present.

Nemo for OP3.

 

 

                                                      ORDER

           Facts necessary for disposal of complaint in hand are that complainant  purchased a Hitachi Summer 1.5 Ton Wac RAT518HUB Window Air Conditioner from its authorized dealer i.e.OP3,on 11-09-2016 for sale consideration of Rs.36,000/-(Copy of original bill is annexed as Annexure-A).Complainant submits that air conditioner purchased by him carried a warranty of 12 calendar months, from the date of installation, against all manufacturing and workmanship defects, whichever occurs earlier.Allegation of complainant is that after the span of 12 days,due to some manufacturing defects,as well as,due to its vent motor,the cooling of air conditioner could not functioning properly and also because of said defect the air conditioner does not cooling properly which has caused great discomfort to the complainant, as well as, his family members that too also during peak season of summer and on 24-09-2016 complainant approached customer care through telephone call and same was attended by the customer care and assured him that company will send some Technician/Engineer who will check the air conditioner and accordingly on,26-09-2016 one engineer came to his residence and checked the air conditioner and found the vent motor of the air conditioner has been damaged and the said technician assured complainant that within 2-3 days he will bring the new vent motor and after two days he replaced it and assured that the problem of the air conditioner has been rectified(Annexure-B).According to complainant on,26-09-2016 after removing the problem in air conditioner, he received one message in his mobile that your call No.16092402170 is closed in our system, total amount collected Rs.0 for the work done(Annexure-C).That only few days the air conditioner functioned properly, but again he was not satisfied with the services provided by Ops as the cooling of air conditioner was not working properly, which causes great mental agony to him, complainant made a phone call to customer care regarding non-functioning of air conditioner and after receiving the call they sent message  on phone that “Dear customer your Breakdown req.for the air conditioner shall be attended soon and again in the month of October, the company sent technician/engineer to check the problem in the air conditioner, he again fond that vent motor has been once again damaged and it requires replacement and fresh vent motor was again fitted in air conditioner and inconvenience  faced by him due to manufacturing defect as the complainant is serving in a private company and it was difficult for him to leave the office again and again for such repair of air conditioner, whenever the Engineer of the company came to his residence and that too also during office time, which is inconvenient for the private employee especially the complainant who suffered a lot. The new vent motor was installed but even then air conditioner was not cooling properly. According to complainant air conditioner supplied by the Op Company suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. In the final analysis complainant submits that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of Ops,therefore,prays for replacement of air conditioner or in the alternative for reimbursement of amount to the tune of Rs.36,000/- and in addition, prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.

          On the other hand,OP1&2 filed written version and went onto submit that the complainant bought air conditioner from OP3 directly and also signed an Agreement of Warranty on the machine, which is a matter of record. It is further submitted that as per clause 1.0 of the above Warranty Agreement the parties i.e. the OP2 and present complainant have agreed categorically that in the event of any dispute Courts of Ahmedabad shall only have jurisdiction “Courts ion Ahmedabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute “is the terms and conditions of the Warranty Agreement. Rest of the contents are denied.

             On the other hand,OP 3 despite service failed to take any action to represent its case before the Forum,therefore,its right to file written version was closed, vide order, dated,09-05-2017

                     Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Mohd.Sadiq .Complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copies of messages.

                          Although OP1&2 filed written version, but after availing numerous opportunities failed to lead any evidence, so, the right of OP to file evidence was closed vide order dated, 17-01-2018.Therfore, unsubstantiated averments contained in the written version of OP cannot overweigh the evidence lead by the complainants.

               We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                       On scanning the file, in our opinion the point which requires consideration  is that as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops, in not removing/rectifying defects in the air conditioner.

                           The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Hitachi Summer 1.5 Ton Wac RAT518HUB Window Air Conditioner from its authorized dealer i.e.OP3,on 11-09-2016 for sale consideration of Rs.36,000,but immediately after the installation of air conditioner, same was not functioning properly and it developed defects which were not removed by the technicians of OPs despite repeated requests. The allegation of the complainant is that OPs are guilty of deficiency in service, in not removing defects in the air conditioner. The complainant has produced copy of bill No.54, showing that an amount of Rs.36,000/-has been paid by the complainant.

                         In order to substantiate his allegations, complainant filed duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Mohd.Sadiq. Complainant and his witness have reiterated the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no repetition. On the other hand, despite OP1&2 was granted ample opportunities to support its version by leading evidence, but it failed to lead iota of evidence in support of its version.Therefore,version of OP1&2 went unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncorroborated by cogent evidence, ,therefore, same being bereft of  legal strength, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

               On the other hand, in support of his allegations complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copies of messages sent by OPs. Therefore, we have no reason to discard with the prayer made by complainant for either replacement of air conditioner or in the alternative refund of cost of air conditioner to the tune of Rs.36,000/- in view of supportive material placed on record.

                          After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumers as per the purport of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and OP is the service provider having failed in its statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumers. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                          Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to replace the air conditioner with a new one or in the alternative to pay an amount of Rs.36,000/-(i.e. cost of air conditioner)alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f.11-09-2016(i.e. from the date of purchase of air conditioner)till its realisation. We further direct OP to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to complainant and Rs.10,000/-as cost of litigation. The OPs shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. On deposit of the amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                            (Khalil Choudhary)                               

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

07-05-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                               

  Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                               

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member