Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1054/2019

Amar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

29 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1054 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	18.10.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	29.05.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Amar Nath s/o Late Sh.Jogu Ram, H.No.1843/85, LIC Colony, Mundi Kharar, Kharar- 140301

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Johnson Controls – Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd., 9^th Floor, Abhijeet01, Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmadabad at Gujarat 380006

Corporate office:-    Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd., 301, Third Floor, DMRC Building, new Ashoka Nagar, Metro Station, Delhi 110096

Area office:- Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning Solutions, SCO 57, 2^nd Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

2]  Hitachi Service Centre E-89, Near HDFC Bank, Vidya Path, Sector 37, Chandigarh

3]  Shree Sai Enterprises, SCO No.97, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh {Given-up vide order dated 07.07.2022}

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.SURJEET KAUR     PRESIDING MEMBER

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA        MEMBER

 

Argued by:-       Complainant in person.

Sh.Ujjawal Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh.Puneet Tuli, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2

OP No.3 given-up

 

PER  B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

        The complainant’s case precisely is that he purchased one Split Air Conditioner of Hitachi make from OP No.3 on 8.6.2018 for an amount of Rs.47,000/- (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that after installation of AC, the complainant in July, 2018 lodged complaint with OPs about the cooling of AC, which was attended by the OP Official.  It is also stated that in June, 2019, the complainant again lodged complaint with OP about the problem in AC in question, whereupon the official of OP Company after inspecting the AC, demanded Rs.500/- to refill the carbon to check the proper fault.  Thereafter, the official of the OP No.1 Company again checked the AC in question on 21.6.2019 and charged Rs.3000/- from the complainant for refilling the gas.  However, the fault in the AC remained the same, so on 12.9.2019, again a complaint was lodged with the OPs which was attended by the official of the OP No.1 Company on 14.9.2019 and raised fresh demand for gas filling, labour charges and visiting charges.  Thereafter, the complainant again lodged complaint about the faulty working of the AC in question but his complaint was closed saying that customer was not contactable.  Later the officials of the OP visited the complainant on 18.9.2019 and demanded the charges again to solve the problem to which complainant refused.  It is submitted that the OP supplied a defective AC to the complainant and the same required multiple times repairs within first year of its purchase. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OP-Johnson Controls – Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. filed written statement and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that whenever the complainant approached the OP Company for any issue with the said product, the same was duly addressed by technician of OP Company.  It is submitted that in June, 2019 the complainant approached the answering OP for some issues with the said product, whereupon the technical person of the answering OP Company conducted all necessary repairs in which the outdoor controller was replaced and gas charging was apparently done and apart from that the said product was working fine in all parameters.  It is submitted that all the work was fully acknowledged by the complainant by signing Job Sheet dated 21.6.2019 (Ann.-B).  It is also submitted that since the product was out of warranty, visit charges were asked from the complainant which he declined and demanded replacement of complete unit which was beyond warranty policy of the company.  It is stated that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product in question nor any deficiency in service on behalf of OP. It is also stated that as per condition of warranty, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repairs or replacement of any part thereof which needs replacement or repair for any reason of defective workmanship or defective components. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the answering OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP–Hitachi India Private Limited instead of written reply, filed application for striking out its name alleging that the product in question is not manufactured or service by it and the Company having a separate legal entity, has no connection in respect of the nature of business of other company. It is stated that the answering OP did not sell the product in question nor entered into any service agreement with complainant and that the answering OP is not necessary and complaint deserves to be dismissed against on account of mis-joinder of party.  

         The OP No.-3-Shree Sai Enterprises has been given up by the complainant as is clear from order dated 7.7.2022.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and have gone through the documents on record.

 

5]      The perusal of the file reveals that the Split AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 8.6.2018 vide Ann.C-1, whereas the complainant lodged a complaint regarding no cooling in the AC with OP Company only on 12.9.2019 (Ann.C-2) i.e. after a period of more than one year.  The complainant has not disputed that the AC in question was carrying complete warranty of one year and 5 years warranty on its compressor.  Thus, it is clear that after expiry of first year warranty period, any repairs of the AC in question, except for any fault in its compressor, are chargeable.  Further, there is no material on record to establish frequent repairs or out-break of AC in question, alleged payments made to official of OPs or any expert opinion to establish any inherent or manufacturing defect in the AC in question.  Therefore, no deficiency in service is attributable towards the OPs.

 

6]       Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice & equity, we deem it proper to dispose of the present complaint with directions to OP No.1- Johnson Controls – Hitachi air Conditioning India Limited to repair the AC in question, making it fully functional, free of cost.  However, it shall be entitled to charge cost of a replaced part(s), if any.  The complaint stands disposed off accordingly.

         Pending application(s), if any, also stands  disposed off.

 

7]       This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy.

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

Announced

29^th May, 2023                                                                                   Sd/-  

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER