DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 130 of 1.4.2016
Decided on: 7.9.2017
Sh.Sukhraj Kumar aged about 43 yrs son of Sh.Makhan Lal Jindal R/o House No.115, Near Blossom School, Bhan Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions ( India) Ltd. head office Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi, District Mehsan-382727 Gujrat, India.
2. S.Bhupinder Singh M/s Harman Refrigerator, Ranbir Marg Near Police Chownki Opposite Dr.Ajmer Singh, Model Town, Patiala Mobile:-98721-44152.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Kamal Nagar,Adv.counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.
Sh.Vipin Sharma, Adv.counsel for OP no.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one split air conditioner make Hitachi 1.0 ton Kaze inverter RAU012KVEA SE 1501335560 RACO 12KVEA 150B27102 from OP No.2 on 24.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.42000/-.It is averred that after one month of purchasing the said AC, it stopped working on 21.7.2017 and the complainant lodged a complaint with OP no.2 vide reference No.15081902237 regarding non-functioning of the A.C. and the complainant made various telephonic calls also to OP no.2 and OP no.2 sent his agent to the house of the complainant who after checking the AC stated that the remote of the AC was not working properly and after repairing the remote of the A.C. assured the complainant that thereafter the AC will work properly. It is further averred that on 4.8.2015, the repaired remote again stopped working and the complainant again made many telephonic calls to OP no.2 who every time used to assure the complainant that the AC along with the remote would be repaired and in case of failure the same would be replaced within a day but till the date of the filing of the present complaint neither the remote has been repaired nor the AC replaced with a new one. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony at the hands of the OPs. On 31.8.2015, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs but the OPs failed to take any active step either to repair or replaced the A.C.On 14.3.2016, the complainant again sent a registered legal notice to the OPs but to no use. Ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, OP no.1 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The only plea taken by OP no.2 is that it is neither the service centre nor manufacturer of the product hence no case is made out against it. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
- The Prop. of OP no.2 tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one split air conditioner on 24.6.2015 from OP no.2 for a sum of Rs.42000/- .Within a month of the said purchase, the A.C.in question stopped working and the complainant lodged a complaint with OP no.2 and an agent of OP no.2 came to rectified the remote. On 4.8.2015, the remote stopped working. On 21.8.2015, the wife of the complainant sent an e-mail to the customer care, copy of the same is attached as Ex.C2.Ex.C3 is the reply of the customer care in which it has promised to repair the A.C. in question.Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 are the e-mails conversations between the complainant and the OPs. Exs.C7 and C11 are the copies of the registered legal notice sent by the complainant to the OPs on 31.8.2015 and 14.3.2016,but the OPs failed to repair or replace the split A.C. of the complainant. In the present case, the problem occurred in the split A.C. within a month of the said purchase i.e. within warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the problem which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part and the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs. After spending such a huge amount, the complainant was unable to take the benefit of the split A.C., rather he was dragged into forced litigation.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.42000/- i.e. the price of the A.C. to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 7.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
