Haryana

Karnal

253/2014

Partap Singh Hundal S/o Santoskh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Virender Pal Singh

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.253 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.: 10.09.2014

                                                               Date of decision:12.07.2016

 

Partap Singh Hundal son of Shri Santoskh Singh, resident of village Gorgarh, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. Head Office at Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, District Mehsana-382727 (Gujrat) through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

2. Jannat, Shop no.139, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Virender Pal Singh Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Gaurav Chhabra Advocate for opposite parties.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Air Conditioner of 1.5TR Hitachi, Kaze plus RAW318KUD from opposite party no.1, who is an authorized dealer of manufacturer opposite party no.1, vide invoice no.JR-559 dated 9.6.2014, for an amount of Rs.28,700/-. Air Conditioner was duly installed at his residence, but it was not working properly. That fact was immediately brought to the notice of the opposite party no.2 and complaint was also lodged with the service centre, vide complaint no.14080901013 dated 9.8.2014. The Engineers of the opposite parties attended to the complaint, but they were unable to remove the defect, rather they orally told that there was manufacturing defect in the said Air Conditioner. He contacted the opposite parties a number of times for replacement of Air Conditioner, but they paid no heed to his requests. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused him mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrongs.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that on receiving complaint of the complainant the Service Engineer of the opposite parties visited his premises several times and on inspection it was found that there was some minor defect in the Air Conditioner and same was removed. The complainant is in habit of making false complaints without any rhyme or reason just to get the benefit from retailer and to blackmail the company. Infact, there was no manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner. The complaint is false and frivolous. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2  and C3 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Amar Sharma Ex.R1/A has been tendered.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant had purchased one Air Conditioner from opposite party no.2 on 9.6.2014. Opposite party no.1 was the manufacturer of the said Air Conditioner. This fact has not been disputed that the complainant made complaint regarding defect in the Air Conditioner. However, the opposite parties have submitted that their Service Engineer visited the residence of the complainant and removed the defect. As per allegations of the complainant the defect could not be removed and Service Engineer told him that there was manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner.

7.                The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner purchased by him. The contents of his affidavit regarding defect in the Air Conditioner cannot be taken to be the gospel truth. However, during the pendency of the complaint the service engineer of the opposite parties checked the Air Conditioner of the complainant on 3.6.2016 and the report of the Engineer has been placed on file by the learned counsel for the opposite party during the course of arguments. According to the said report the complainant made complaint that there was no cooling and the service engineer found that PCB was defective and the same was required to be replaced. Thus, from such facts and circumstances, it is established that there is defect in the  PCB of the Air Conditioner of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties are bound to replace the PCB and remove the defect of the Air Conditioner and if defects are not removable then replace the Air Conditioner.

8.                In view of the foregoing circumstances, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to remove the defects of the Air Conditioner of the complainant purchased by him from opposite party no.2 within a period of 30 days positively and if the defects are not removed during this period to the satisfaction of the complainant, the opposite parties would replace the Air Conditioner or make payment of the price thereof to the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses within 45 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.07.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member