Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/576/2016

Anand Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Karan Singla Adv.

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	576/2016
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	02.03.2017

 

                                       

                                               

Anand Parkash s/o Sh.K.L.Aggarwal r/o H.No.5744, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., through its Manager, Plot No.213, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh Landmark: Opp Bhushan Steel Factiory-160002.

 

2.     New Bansal Electronics through its Manager, SCO 269, Sector 16, Panchkula, Haryana.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Karan Singla, Adv. for the complainant

Sh.Saurabh Garg, Adv. for OP No.1

OP No.2 exparte.

               

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Hitachi Split Air Conditioner from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.45,700/- vide invoice dated 08.06.2016.  However, at the time of demo by OP No.1, it came to light that the product was a defective one and, therefore, he wrote an email dated 09.06.2016 at the customercare@jci-hitachi.com for replacing of the indoor unit and the same was also written by the complainant on the feed back form given to ingenious.  He also lodged a complaint of Dead on arrival (DAO) by way of SMS address to helpline of OP No.1. However, the complaint lodged by the complainant was closed by OP No.1 at their own end without providing any solution on 11.06.2016.   Subsequently, he wrote another e-mail dated 13.06.2016, Annexure C-4 mentioning therein that his complaint was closed by OP No.1 without providing any solution and the Manager has also failed to answer the calls.  It has further been averred that the complaint regarding the breakdown made on 13.06.2016, was also closed on 22.06.2016 without providing any solution. Finding no other alternative, the complainant wrote various complaints on the face book page of OP No.1 in the hope   that they may provide him an effective solution to his problem.  It has further been averred that OP No.1 finally replaced the indoor unit of the defective AC after 10 days from the date of its purchase and after lodging various requests/complaints. It has further been averred that even after replacement of the indoor unit, the problem was still subsisting which proves that OP No.2 sold a defective product. The complainant again registered the complaint No.16062303339 on 24.06.2016 but the same was again closed without redressing the same on 24.06.2016. The complainant was again forced to make another request by way of an SMS which was registered as breakdown request but no action was taken. Ultimately, the complainant had to resort to the alternate remedy by making a complaint dated 27.06.2016 on the face book page of OP No.1 which was replied by OP No.1 to the effect that they sent the request to the support team and they would ensure that the same would be resolved at the earliest.  Thereafter the complainant lodged complaints with OP No.1 and finally, the complainant was refunded Rs.45,700/- on 05.07.2016. It has further been averred that the OPs have refunded the price of the AC but they failed to compensate him for the harassment underdone by him.  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.         In its written statement, OP No.1 admitted the facts with regard to the purchase of the AC in question by the complainant and its warranty for one year. It has been denied that the OP No.1 had failed to provide the satisfactory services to the complainant and rather the OP had always taken due and necessary care while providing services to the complainant. It has further been pleaded that by filing the present complaint, the complainant aims to create a bold impression of himself and to get mileage in the society he resides and conducts business at the cost of the repute of the OP No.1 and to tarnish the image of the Company. It has been denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the product in question. All the allegations made in the complaint have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.09.2016.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         From the perusal of the documentary evidence especially the complaints made by the complainant with the OPs shows that the product in question was a defective one from the date of its purchase.  Pertinently, the OPs have even changed the indoor unit of the AC in question after about 10 days of its purchase but despite its changing, the same was not working to the satisfaction of the complainant. Resultantly, the complainant made numerous complaints to the OPs through SMS and even sent e-mails regarding non-working of the AC in question. But to irony of the complainant, the same was closed by the OPs without redressing the grievance of the complainant.   Finally, the OPs had refunded the price of the AC in question to the complainant on 05.07.2016 i.e. after about one month of its purchase despite having the knowledge that the AC in question was not working properly since the very day of its purchase.  The complainant and his family members have been deprived of the use of the AC in extreme hot and humid weather in the month of June-July being no fault on their part.  Keeping in view the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
6.           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint with a direction to the OPs to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02.03.2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER