DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ramesh Kumar Mittal, House No.556, Mohala Pathana, Dera Bassi, Punjab.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Hitachi Home Life ‘N’ Solution Pvt. (L), SCO No.392, First floor, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh

2.                 Hitachi Home Life ‘N’ Solution Pvt. (L), 10^th Floor, Abhijit, Mithakali, 6 Road, Ahmedabad, 380006

3.                 Gupta Electric Co., SCO No.1117, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. H.P.S. Kochhar, Counsel for the complainant

                        OPs exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mittal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)                   to replace the air conditioner with a new working one of the same model or to refund Rs.44,250/- alongwith interest

ii)                to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony

iii)              to pay Rs.5,000/- as damages for deficiency in service.

iv)              To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Hitachi air conditioner alongwith stabilizer from the opposite parties vide invoice dated 7.5.2012 (C-1) for Rs.44,250/-.  However, since the very first day of installation, the said air conditioner did not function properly and had problems of water leaking from the indoor unit and improper cooling.  Even the remote was not functioning.  The complainant brought the defects to the notice of the opposite parties which could not be removed despite visit of the technicians/engineers of the opposite parties. Since the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects, though the air conditioner was within the warranty period, therefore the complainant sent a legal notice dated 31.8.2012 (C-2) to replace the air conditioner, but to no avail.

In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Upon notice, Sh. Arvinder Singh, Service Supervisor appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the case was fixed for reply and evidence. However, subsequently none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.  Hence, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.3.2013.

4.                           Opposite party No.3 was duly served.  However, none appeared on its behalf. Accordingly, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.2.2013

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           It has been contended by the ld. Counsel that the complainant purchased a Hitachi Air conditioner alongwith stabilizer from opposite party No.3.  Annexure C-1 is the invoice dated 7.5.2012 of Rs.44,250/- which proves the purchase of the air conditioner by the complainant.  According to the ld. Counsel the said air conditioner did not work properly from day one of the installation.  It had defects of water leakage from the indoor unit, improper cooling and even the remote was also not functioning.  The complainant lodged complaints with regard to the same vide complaint No.12070201780 and 12081100952 but the defects could not be removed despite visits by the technicians/engineers of the opposite parties.  Annexure C-2 is the legal notice dated 31.8.2012 through which the complainant asked the opposite parties to replace the defective air conditioner.  The complainant also filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his averments in the complaint. 

7.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant. Therefore, the stand of the complainant goes unrebutted.  The air conditioner was well within the warranty period when the complaint was lodged with the opposite parties and the opposite parties were duty bound to repair the same.  The opposite parties also failed to respond to the legal notice of the complainant.  Failure of the opposite parties either to repair or replace the defective air conditioner certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

8.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

                                           i.                        to immediately replace the defective air conditioner with a new one of the same make and model.  If the opposite parties are unable to replace the defective air conditioner, then they shall refund the invoice price of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.44,250/- to the complainant.

                                         ii.                        to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant

                                      iii.                        to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

9.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

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

Announced

20.3.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER