Delhi

East Delhi

CC/364/2015

VIKAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

HITACHI HOME - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

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

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no          364 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  21/05/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 10/04/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          11/04/2018   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Vikas Vaid, adult 

S/o Sh  KK Vaid  

R/o – 260, FF, Sec. 2B,   

Vaishali Ghaziabad, UP 201010 ….……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd.,

    B- 23, FF, Sec. 2,

    Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida 201301

 

2- M/s Amaan Electronics  

     1/7, Lalita Park, Gurdwara,

     Vikas Marg, Delhi 11009………..………………...………………………  Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate……………….Akhlesh Kumar & Ram Kumar Sharma

Opponent’s Advocate……....…………..Navin Kumar Jha

 

Quorum  –      Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case

  

Complainant purchased Hitachi 1.5 Ton Window AC 2 “LOGI COOL” model from OP2/ Amaan Electronics on dated 24/03/2014 vide invoice no. 1350 for a sum of Rs 22,900/-(Ex CW1/1). At the time of installation of the said AC, the service engineer from OP2 said that the AC did not have remote as it was an old model and remote comes only with higher version of AC, so complainant contacted OP2 for getting remote, but OP 2 told that if complainant wish to have Remote control device Window AC then he had to pay additional Rs 3000/-and so after paying additional amount, took higher version of Window AC as ‘KAZE’ model with warranty card of one year standard warranty on 25/03/2014, but OP2 did not issue a new invoice rather endorsement was done at the back of the old invoice.

It was stated that the said AC was got fitted by OP2 service engineer on the same day, but after about a month of its installation, cooling problem started so complainant made complaint of customer care of OP1 who sent a service engineer and gas leakage problem was rectified and the said AC was working normally. It was stated that the same problem reoccurred after some time so again a complaint was made vide complaint no. 14072601570. Even after rectifying the problem, complainant was not satisfied and sent legal notice to OP1 on 02/04/2015 (ExCW1/2) and Emails also for refund of the cost of Hitachi 1.5 Ton Window AC 2, KAZE PLUS with installation amount Rs 2500/-, but did not get any reply. Then complainant purchased a new Voltas AC for a sum of Rs 35,000/-(Ex CW1/3) and later filed this complaint claimed refund of amount new AC purchased with litigation charges Rs 40,000/-.

Notices were served. OP1submitted written statement on behalf of OP2 also and totally denied all the allegations of complainant were false and incorrect. It was stated that the said AC was purchased in good quality and had no manufacturing defects and was installed by their service engineer as per the company’s guidelines. It was also denied that the remote was not supplied and the said AC was an old model, rather the same model was selected by the complainant. As wished for a higher version of AC, had paid extra amount and the previous purchased AC was taken back and a new AC ‘KAZE Plus’ model was installed. It was admitted that as per company’s policy, installation was done, but if AC had to remove and new AC had to install, service charges had to be borne by the customers/complainant and here in this case also, complainant had paid removal charges and was satisfied.  

It was also submitted that only one complaint was received by OP1 that too was rectified under standard warranty period and thereafter there was no complaint or service note from service engineer to show that the second installed AC had any defect. Hence, this case may be dismissed.  

Complainant submitted his rejoinder and stated that due to deficient services of OP2, complainant had to bear extra charges to purchase a new AC. Hence all the replies submitted by the OP1 were totally wrong.  He also filed his evidence on affidavit and affirmed himself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true and all correct facts had been stated in his complaint.

OP1 also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Sh Mohit Sharma, authorised representative of OP1 and stated on oath that all the facts were rightly denied by them and their product had no manufacturing defect.  OP also referred citations as –

• Citi Municipal Corporation vs SA Lateef & Co. ( AIR 2004 Kant 491),
• Tata Motors vs Deepak Goyal (RP 2309/2008 (NC) &
• Vikram Bajaj vs Hind Motors (India) Ltd., 2009 II CLT 670 NC.

In all above citations, law laid down was same as OP was only to replace the part or product if manufacturing defect was established. But here in this second AC, there was no manufacturing defect or any service was ever availed by the complainant.       

Arguments were heard from both the parties at length and order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was admitted by OP that the said New AC was taken after taking additional amount Rs 3000/- which had all the facilities. We have also seen that the complaint was filed with alleged defects in the earlier AC (ex CW1/1) which was replaced by OP2, but there was no evidence of service deficiency or manufacturing defect. Hence no concrete evidence was available on record to prove deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in second AC (KAZE Plus) model.

Hence we are of the opinion that this complaint deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 18(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room uinder regulation 20 of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                              Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                            

                                                      Sukhdev Singh President