Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/261/2016

Suneet Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Limited - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	261/2016
Date of Institution	:	20.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	12/07/2016

 

                                       

                                               

Suneet Kapoor s/o Sh.P.D.Kapoor r/o Flat No.1-A, Garden Village Behind Royal City, Nagla Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab).

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., Hitachi Air Conditioning Company, Corporate Office Shop No.TF:301, 3^rd Floor, DMRC Building, New Ashok Nagar, Metro Station, New Delhi-110096.

 

2.     Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., Hitachi Air Conditioning Company, Head Office, Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, District Mehsana-382727, Gujrat, India.

 

3.     Khanna Sales and Services, SCONo.2467-2468, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, Alternative Address: Khanna Bros., Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

4.     Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., C/o Boxman Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.101, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh -160002.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Complainant in person.

                OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased the Hitachi products i.e. washing machine and refrigerator from OP No.3 vide invoices [Annexure C-1 (Colly.)] for Rs.65,000/- and Rs.44,350/- respectively.  However, the refrigerator was found to be defective as the outer body of the same had major dents and as such the same was replaced on 23.09.2015 vide Invoice-cum-Challan (Annexure C-2). It has further been averred that the washing machine started giving problems as the same had to be restarted for the entire process of washing due to power cut and otherwise the machine was automatic and supposed to be started automatically after the power is supplied uninterrupted. The said defect was rectified by replacing the sensor plate of the washing machine. Later on, the washing machine started giving the problem of abnormal noise on running and on checking the machine, the service engineer of the OPs found the drum of the machine to be defective and assured the complainant that the same would be replaced within warranty.  However, the same was not replaced by the OPs on his repeated phone calls. Finally the complainant received a call from the OPs for the replacement of the machine. It has further been averred that on 16.04.2016, the service provider brought the new machine but the same was found to be old Model of 2014 and the same was also defective as there were dents on its body as is evident from the photographs (Annexure C-8).and as such the same was returned.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs despite due service have failed to appear to contest the case and as such they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3.         We have heard the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint alongwith the documents C-1 to C-8. The evidence led by the complainant has also gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the OPs to refute the allegations made in the complaint despite due service.  It can, thus, be concluded without any hesitation that either they admit the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.    In our considered view, the complainant who spent a hefty amount of Rs.65,000/- on the purchase of the washing machine of the OPs cannot be made to accept the old and defective washing machine having dents on its body as is evident from the photographs attached with the complaint as Annexure C-8 (Colly.) in lieu of the replacement of the new machine which started giving problems after few months of its purchase on one or the other count. We, thus, deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs to replace the washing machine because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the replaced product of the OPs develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for him.   In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is writ large because they have failed to replace the machine with a new one despite their assurances and receiving the hefty amount of Rs.65,000/- towards machine in question.
5.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.65,000/- i.e. the price of washing machine in question.
2. To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

6.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12/07/2016                                                                      sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER