CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.219/2018

RAHUL SRIVASTAVA

B-272 A, GREATER KAILASH, PART- I,

NEW DELHI - 110048                                         …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. HITACHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD.

GROUND FLOOR, A-261, PHASE-I, INDUSTRIAL AREA,

OKHLA, NEW DELHI - 110020

2. PANKAT ELECTRONICS,

9, D.A.V SCHOOL BUILDING,

MAIN ROAD, GREEN PARK,

NEW DELHI - 110016                                            .…..RESPONDENTS

Date of Institution-28.09.2018

Date of Order- 09.02.2023

  O R D E R         

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP in not rectifying the defects in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant.

          The complainant avers that after going through the advertisement of OP1 and relying upon the emphasis being given on made in Japan, the complainant exchanged his Samsung refrigerator with a two door refrigerator Hitachi Model No. RZ660, 601 litres on 15.5.2011 through OP2, the dealer. A sum of Rs. 57,500/- was paid for the aforesaid refrigerator.

          The refrigerator was serviced in a routine manner between 2011 and 2013. From 31.07.2014 onwards the complainant observed less cooling in the refrigerator. The complainant complained to Hitachi customer service helpline.  The problem was identified as gas leakage and required payment of Rs. 4,930/-. On 13.8.2015 a similar problem occurred. The complainant had to go through the same complaint process and paid Rs. 3,512/- for carrying out necessary repairs.

          In June, 2017, the refrigerator stopped working completely. The complainant contends that he approached OP1 with his grievances. Some service engineers from NCR service centre came for repairs. He paid a sum of Rs. 750/- + Rs. 2,000/- as advance towards small replacement of parts on 21.6.2017. The refrigerator stopped working after 24 hours. Engineers from NCR Service centre inspected the refrigerator on 22.6.2017. The engineer replaced the old compressor with a new one on 23.6.2017 and raised a bill of Rs. 9,500/-.

          The complainant was asked to pay in cash by service engineers of NCR service centre. The complainant called Hitachi consumer service enquiring about NCR service centre. He was informed that NCR service centre was not a part of Hitachi authorised service centres. He did not pay the remaining amount to NCR service centre. The complainant sent an email to OP1 on 30.6.2017. It is alleged that unauthorised service officials were sent by OP1 to rectify the defect. On receiving an aforesaid mentioned email OP1 sent an engineer to inspect the refrigerator on payment of Rs. 500/-. The said engineer found that the compressor installed by NCR service centre belong to a different company (LG).

          On 2018, the refrigerator again stopped cooling. OP1 again changed/ refilled some parts and the complainant had to make a payment of Rs. 4,080/-. Within 4 months the refrigerator again stopped cooling. Another complaint was made to service centre. The complainant was informed that the gas has leaked from the refrigerator. He paid Rs. 3,500/- for refilling the gas. Thereafter, the refrigerator stopped working. Another complaint was made. On inspection it was found that the compressor has failed. No service was provided to the complainant till 18.5.2018 despite repeated request. On 19.5.2018 a new compressor was installed on payment of a sum of Rs. 15,540/-.

          On 18.6.2018 refrigerator stopped working again. A complaint was made but there was no response. The compressor was finally changed in the last week of June. No warranty period was given on the said compressor. It is alleged that new compressors being advertised have a warranty of 10 years. The complainant states that he had paid Rs. 23,120/- since 2018 for multiple repairs. 

On 31.7.2018 the complainant sent a legal notice.  The complainant suffered all these years due to defective refrigerator and lack of service from OP1. He also alleges that the refrigerator suffers from manufacturing defect since the beginning and started malfunctioning within the warranty period. He had to buy a new refrigerator for a sum of Rs. 44,891/-.  The complainant prays that OP1 be directed to replace an old defective refrigerator with a new two door refrigerator of capacity 600 litres, pay an amount of Rs. 79,703/- towards expenses and cost of new refrigerator and in the alternative pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment.

          OP1 in its reply has stated the products manufactured by OP1 passes through stringent quality test and test trials before commercial production. OP1 admits that a two door refrigerator was purchased through OP2 on 15.5.2011. The product carries a warranty for a period of one year and five years for compressor. The complainant approached OP1 for the first time in July, 2014 reporting some issues. The technicians of OP1 visited and performed the necessary repairs. The complainant approached the OP1 in August, 2015 with another complaint. The technicians of OP1 rectified the defects.

          OP1 has denied that the NCR Service Centre who repaired the refrigerator on 21.6.2017 was its authorized service centre. OP submits that warranty policy becomes void when any repair work is carried out by unauthorized persons. Otherwise also, the compressor became non-functional in year 2017 which is not within five years from the date of purchase and the warranty had lapsed. OP1 further submits that timely services were rendered on receipt of service request.  OP1 also relies on Clause 1.0 of warranty terms wherein “Courts in Ahmedabad shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute.”

OP1 states that complainant has failed to prove any negligence on part of OP1 and prays for dismissal of complaint.

The complainant has filed rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the contentions made in the complaint. The complainant alleges that the compressor installed by OP1 on 19.5.2018 started malfunctioning shortly after installation. The same was reported to customer care centre. The warranty period of newly installed compressor is only one year whereas the charges for the said repair are nearly half a cost of the new refrigerator. Complainant avers that the warranty should extend to the period of 10 years which is being offered on new refrigerators. The complainant states that the present complaint is within the jurisdiction of this Commission due to the presence of the branch office situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-

1. Invoice for two door refrigerator is exhibited as Ex. CW1/1.
2. Receipt for repairs dated 31.7.2014 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/2.
3. Receipt for repairs dated 13.8.2015 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/3.
4. Receipt for repairs dated 21.6.2017 and 23.6.2017 by NCR Service Centre are exhibited as Ex. CW1/4 and Ex. CW1/5 respectively.
5. Copy of email dated 30.6.2017 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/6.
6. Receipt for repairs dated 4.7.2017, 16.01.2018, 5.5.2018, 19.5.2018 are exhibited as Ex. CW1/7 to Ex. CW1/10.

OP has filed its evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following document:-

1. Copy of warranty policy is exhibited as Ex. OPW-1B/A.

Though, OP has relied on job sheets in its affidavit but has not placed any job sheets on record.

Complainant has filed written arguments in which he has detailed events subsequent to filing of the complaint. It is alleged that on 30/31.1.2020 the engineers of OP once again visited the complainant and informed that the main motherboard of the same was not working. On 27.7.2020 after repeated requests the technicians of OP carried out repairs after payment of a sum of Rs. 23,700/-. The said refrigerator was repaired again on 9.6.2021 and 19.1.2022 after payment of sum of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,530/- respectively. Complainant has adduced a table detailing repairs and repair changes that are as follows:-

OP has also filed written arguments repeating the submission made in its reply.

We have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and material on record. It is admitted that the complainant has purchased a refrigerator manufactured by OP on 15.5.2011 for Rs. 57,500/-. It is also admitted that the problems were faced by complainant regarding this refrigerator after expiry of warranty.

Job sheets admitted by both the parties shows are as follows:-

1. Job sheet dated 31.7.2014- Gas changing, drier, starting device on payment of Rs. 4,930/-
2. Job sheet dated 12.8.2015- Gas changing, drier, thermal fuse on payment of Rs. 3,512/-
3. Job sheet dated 4.7.2017- Against service request on paymen of Rs. 500/-
4. Job sheet dated 6.1.2018- Gas changing, drier, thermal fuse on payment of Rs. 4,080/-
5.  Job sheet dated 5.5.2018- Gas changing, drier, filters on a payment of Rs. 3,500/-
6. Job sheet undated – compressor on a payment of Rs. 15,540/-

Job sheet by NCR Service Centre filed by complainant and not admittedby OP by stating that it was an unauthorized service centre are as follows:-

1. Job sheet dated 21.6.2017- starting circuit, service charge on a payment of Rs. 750/- with Rs. 2,000/- advance payment.
2. Job sheet dated 23.6.2017- compressor replace, gas refill, filter change, service charge on a payment of Rs. 9,500/-

Complainant has also filed an email to OP1 wherein it is stated that when he made a complaint on customer case number of OP1, and thereafter, technicians from NCR Service Centre came to inspect the product. Initially, a payment of a sum of Rs.750/- along with a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as advance was paid to the technician. Thereafter, the technicians visited again and replaced the compressor. Though, the compressor was replaced, the payment was to be made on the name of one Mr. Manoj through RTGS or Paypal. As a receipt was in the name of NCR Service Centre, the complainant refused to make the payment of remaining Rs. 7,500/- .

Complainant has also filed job sheet subsequent to complaint:-

1. Job sheet dated 27.7.2020- Compressor replaced, gas changed, …. Replaced, thermal fuse replaced, drier replaced, P.C.V replaced on a payment of  Rs. 23,270/-
2. Job sheet dated 9.6.2021- ….., …., lamp, v. change, thermal fuse on a payment of Rs. 3,500/-
3. Job sheet dated 19.1.2022 – 2 condenser, gas, ……, capillary, v. change on a payment of Rs. 7,530/-

These job sheets have not been refuted by OP in their written arguments and in their oral submissions made before this Commission.

The job sheets admitted by both parties show that that there has been refilling of gas 7 times and changed of thermal fuse 4 times. Small parts have also been replaced. The compressor which is supposedly the main part of the refrigerator has been changed by OP1 authorized service centre twice in June, 2018 and again on 27.7.2020. The compressor was also changed by NCR Service Centre admittedly on 23.6.2017. Technicians from authorized service centre of OP who inspected the said refrigerator on 4.7.2017 on payment of Rs. 500/- had no problems with the said compressor except that the compressor was of another company (LG).

It can be concluded that there were no defects in the said product within a period of one year warranty. The problems occurred for the first time in July, 2014. OP1 rectified it by changing the gas. The same problem occurred on 13.8.2015. OP1 rectified it again by changing the gas. Problems regarding the refrigerator were faced again by the complainant and OP1 rectified it by changing the gas on 6.1.2018.  Problems occurred again and OP1 rectified it by changing the gas in 5.5.2018. OP changed the compressor on 19.5.2018 that failed to work. OP changed the compressor again in last week of June as stated by complainant and not specifically denied by OP. On 27.7.2020, OP changed the compressor and changed the gas. Similarly, the thermal fuse and drier were replaced on 31.7.2014, 13.8.2015, 6.1.2018, 5.5.2018, 27.7.2020. The thermal fuse again replaced on 9.6.2021 and gas was filed/ replaced on 19.1.2022.

It can be concluded from the sequence of the job sheet that the refrigerator in question required constant gas filling/ changing, drier and thermal fuse replacement. Payments were proffered and accepted during the service as it was out of warranty.  OP on payment undertook to meet the requirement of complainant relating to malfunctioning despite expiry of warranty period. When a product is repaired after taking payment, it becomes the duty of organization repairing it that the product should work trouble free. If the same problem keeps recurring requiring same rectification, its points to deficiency in service leading either defective replacement of parts or the parts replaced may be defective. The constant filling of gas would lead a reasonable person to conclude that gas is leaking. Instead of rectifying that issue, OP1 kept on re-filling the gas. The constant replacement of thermal fuse indicates that the replaced thermal fuse was defective. The compressor installed by OP1 stopped working and had to be replaced first within a month and then again in two years. A consumer is supposed to pay again and again for same parts.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic & Anr vs Addl. Collector Of Customs, A.P decided on 24 February, 2006 vide CA No. 1273 of 2006 has observed  The Appellant had all along been aware that the system installed by it had not been functioning properly. On its own showing, it had been attending to the complaints made by the Respondent relating to the functioning of the system. It has categorically been stated by the Appellant itself that despite expiry of the period of warranty it had been attending to the complaints as and when made by the respondent which were of serious nature From the aforementioned conduct of the Appellant itself, it may be inferred that it voluntarily undertook to meet the requirements of the Respondent relating to mal-functioning etc. of the said system despite expiry of the period of warranty. 

Thus, it is clear that the complainant has suffered because of the recurrence of the constant defects in the refrigerator. Though, OP has rectified the defects on payment, the same problem reoccurred time and again. Hence, we find OP1 guilty of deficiency in service by not rectifying the defects in the refrigerator properly despite due payment by the complainant and direct it to pay:-

1. Rs. 44,232/- with interest 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.
2.  Rs. 20,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and physical inconveniences.
3.  Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The order to be complied within 30 days from the date of uploading of order failing which it will carry an interest of @12% p.a. from the date of order to till payment.