Date of Filing : 24.05.2006
Date of Order : 25.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.305/2006
MONDAY THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr.M.P.Chezian,
No.6, M.G. Priya Nagar,
Urapakkam, Tambaram T.K.,
Kancheepuram District. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. M/s. Hitachi Home & Life
Solutions (India) Ltd.,
C/O Gati Ltd..,
No.83/1, Thiruneeramalai Road,
Chennai – 44.
2. M/s. Rathna Fan House,
No.36/1, Rjabathar Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : M/s. S.N. Ravikumar
For the opposite party-1 : M/s. K.Ramu
For the opposite party-2 : Exparte.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and also to supply new good working air conditioner by replacing the second one installed by the 1st opposite party and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he has purchased the Air conditioner Quadri Cool A/c. with premier cool A/c with Premier Stabilizer from the 2nd opposite party on 21.05.2005 for Rs.22,018/-, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The said air conditioner was found not properly working within the month of date of purchase and on complaint made by the complainant the 1st opposite party’s technicians have attended the same, found out that the IDU fan motor fault and also motor winding running week and Fan motor to be replaced. On the above said complaint for repair the said air conditioner was taken by the 1st opposite party technicians by fixing an another air conditioner for standby for the use of the complainant. According to the complainant the said fan also not functioning properly and was making noise disturbing the atmosphere. After repair work was attended in the original air conditioner, the 1st opposite party technicians replaced the same whereas the complainant has refused to accept the same. Accordingly the complainant issued legal notice on 20.9.2005 calling the opposite party to come and take the old air conditioner machine and to refund the cost of the air condition machine and to pay compensation within ten days from the date of receipt of notice. On receipt of legal notice the 1st opposite party had sent the reply notice dated 13.9.2005 almost admitting the fault of supplied air-condition machine. As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for claiming to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and also to supply new good working air conditioner by replacing the second one installed by the 1st opposite party and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
Written Version of 1st opposite party is in briefly as follows:
2. The 1st opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The 1st opposite party submit that the air conditioner was found problem, immediately on receipt of the complaint from the complainant regarding the said problem its technicians were went and attended the same. As stated by the complainant, when the said air conditioner checked and by the technicians by the opposite party it was found that IDU Fan motor fault and also motor winding of running week and Fan motor to be replaced, accordingly the technicians have taken the said air conditioner for repair by replacing by another air conditioner by standby for the use of the complainant. After rectifying the defect when the technicians attempted to replace the same and to take away the standby air conditioner from the complainant, the complainant has without any valid reason has refused for the same. Thus the complainant alone is to be blamed and not this opposite party. The complainant cannot have any grievance against the opposite party as he had been offered a new air conditioner as replacement. It is strange to note that the complainant refuses to take delivery of the new air conditioner. Thus the complainant, it is very clear has invoked the present proceedings as an abuse of process of law with intent to harass the opposite party. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the opposite party is not liable to compensate as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 2nd opposite party was set exparte on 5.7.2006.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of 1st Opposite party filed and no document was marked on the side of the 1st opposite party.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complaint mentioned air conditioner manufactured
by the 1st opposite party was suffered by manufacturing defect?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the replacement of air
conditioner and payment of compensation sought for in the
complaint against the opposite parties?
6. POINTS 1 to 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 1st opposite party, proof affidavits filed by both the complainant and the 1st opposite party and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 filed on the side of complainant and considered the arguments of the both sides.
7. Considering the both side case, there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased the complaint mentioned Air conditioner from the 2nd opposite party on 21.05.2005 for Rs.22,018/-, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The Ex.A1 invoice and copy of the warranty card Ex.A2 are prove the same. The said air conditioner was found not properly working within the month of date of purchase and on report complaint made by the complainant the 1st opposite party technicians have attended the same, the service report filed as Ex.A3 reveals that under the column of service man report mentioned in the Ex.A3 that IDU fan motor winding of running week. Fan motor to be replaced. On the above said complaint and for repair the said air conditioner was taken by the 1st opposite party technicians by fixing an another air conditioner for standby for the use of the complainant. According to the complainant the said fan also not functioning properly and was making noise disturbing the atmosphere. It is also not disputed that after repair work was attended in the original air conditioner, the 1st opposite party technicians replaced the same whereas the complainant has refused to accept the same by contending that the complaint mentioned air conditioner which was purchased by the complainant was defective as manufacturing defect as such even after repair the complainant was not willing to accept the said air conditioner as such demanded compensation and also for replacement of new air conditioner.
8. The 2nd opposite party dealer from whom the complaint mentioned air conditioner was purchased was remained exparte in this proceedings. Whereas the 1st opposite party who is the manufacturer have resisted the complaint by saying that when the complaint mentioned air conditioner was found problem, immediately on receipt of the complaint from the complainant regarding the said problem its technicians were went and attended the same. As stated by the complainant, when the said air conditioner checked and by the technicians by the opposite party it was found that IDU Fan motor winding of running week and Fan motor to be replaced, accordingly the technicians have taken the said air conditioner for repair by replacing by another air conditioner by standby for the use of the complainant. After rectifying the defect when the technicians attempted to replace the same and to take away the standby air conditioner from the complainant, the complainant has without any valid reason has refused for the same and not allowed the technicians to do so and demanded compensation of Rs.25,000/- and replacement of the said air conditioner with new one which is not sustainable and the complaint filed by the complainant claiming the same is not maintainable. However even in the written version the 1st opposite party has further stated that the complainant cannot claim a different air conditioner for replacement which is much more costlier than what was purchased by the complainant. The 1st opposite party in the 7th para of the written version has again stated that this opposite party specifically offered to give a free new replacement air conditioner. However complainant claim of replacement of new one with payment of compensation is not sustainable and justifiable.
9. The service report Ex.A3 to Ex.A6 and the contents thereon are proves that the complaint mentioned original air conditioner purchased by the complainant was found IDU fan motor winding running week, and motor to be replaced and the same was attended and the fan motor of the said air conditioner was corrected, and the same was in working condition as per report Ex.A4. Again on 09.07.2005 the standby air conditioner fixed as substitute was found running with noise and however the same was working normally. Again 20.07.2005 service report Ex.A5 reveals that the fan motor winding running of coil week, Fan motor to be replaced. Therefore as per the service report given by the 1st opposite party technicians which has been filed Ex.A3 to A6 have revealed that even the standby air conditioner was also not working properly and making noise and was found fan motor of the said air conditioner was also defective. Therefore the complainant grievance for not accepting the replacement of the repaired air conditioner on the ground that the air conditioner was suffered by manufacturing defect is acceptable.
10. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case the complaint claim of compensation of Rs.25,000/- cannot be considered to be justifiable because, as contended by the opposite party immediately after the receipt of the complaint for the problem of the said air conditioner from the complainant their technicians have attended and the problem was found out the standby air conditioner was fixed, the alleged original air conditioner machine was taken to their service station for repair, and on the demand made by the complainant in this proceedings, the 1st opposite party also offered to replace the air conditioner with new one as it was permitted by their head office. However we are of the considered view for the alleged defect found in the said air conditioner the 1st opposite party would have come forward to replace the new one in the first instance itself, but failed to do so the 1st opposite party is liable to replace the same to the complainant at present.
11. Therefore we are of the considered view the 1st opposite party is to replace the brand new similar type of air conditioner to the complainant after taking back the standby air conditioner. In the event of non availability of the similar brand new air conditioner the 1st opposite party is to refund the cost of the air conditioner i.e Rs.22,018/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e 24.05.2006 to till the date of payment. Further the 1st opposite party is also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges. Since the 2nd opposite party is the dealer and the grievance is for the manufacturer defect of the complaint mentioned air conditioner, the 2nd opposite party is not responsible for the said grievance. Therefore this complaint is dismissed as against the 2nd opposite party. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed, the 1st opposite party is directed to replace with a brand new similar air conditioner to the complainant or in the event of non availability of such similar air conditioner, to pay a sum of Rs.22,018/- (Rupees twenty two thousand and eighteen only) towards cost of the air conditioner to the complainant on taking return of the standby air conditioner, which was provided already to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation charges within six weeks from the date of this order. This complaint against the 2nd opposite party is dismissed.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 25th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 21.5.2008 - Copy of cash bill.
Ex.A2- 21.5.2008 - Copy of warranty card.
Ex.A3- 25.6.2005 - Copy of Service report.
Ex.A4- 27.6.2005 - Copy of Service report.
Ex.A5- 9.7.2005 - Copy of Service report.
Ex.A6- 20.7.2005 - Copy of Service report.
Ex.A7- 20.7.2005 - Copy of letter from complainant.
Ex.A8- - - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A9- 13.9.2005 - Copy of Reply notice.
Ex.A10-8.10.2005 - Copy of Rejoinder.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- .. Nil ..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
