Delhi

East Delhi

CC/252/2013

DR.DIWAKAR SUKUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HITACHI INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

15 Apr 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                 CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.252/2013
 

Dr. Diwakar Sukul

R/o 10/144, New Raj Nagar,

Ghaziabad, U.P.

 

Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/s Hitachi India

Through its GM/MD/CMD

H.O.: Hitachi India Trading Pvt. Ltd.,

10^th Floor, Hindustan Times House,

18-20, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-01.

 

2. M/s Croma,

Through its Manager/GM/MD/CMD

Aditya City Centre,

Plot No.C/GH-3,

Vaibhav Khand, Indrapuram,

Ghaziabad-201001                         

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 25/03/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 06/01/2016

ORDER

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased from Respondent No.2 on 27/05/2012 Air conditioner 2.0 Ton Split two units paying Rs.95,715/-. The Air conditioners on installation started giving problem of cooling and giving loud noise. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondent. The Engineer visited the complainant place and took excuse of soaring heat. Repeated complaints were made but no constructive steps were taken for the removal of defects in the two Air conditioners.  The mechanic opined replacement is the only solution. Complaint No.517168 and 5277761 were attended by Mr. Syed but the defect could not be removed. He made telephonic calls at Ahmadabad Office of the Respondent No.1. On 15/08/2012 the Air conditioner stopped working. Complaint No.12001500526 was attended by the mechanic. The indoor motors found faulty. He was also of the opinion that unit requires replacement. Complaints were made on various dates as noted in Para 13 of the complaint, but they did nothing about it, only submit apology for delay in service. Hearing nothing from the Respondent, Complainant also sent a written complaint to the core Center Ministry of Consumer Affairs Govt. of India at Delhi. The complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.95,715/- with 24% interest and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

            Respondent filed their reply after the order passed earlier was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.896/13. The Respondent have taken the plea that the Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd. And Hitachi Home and Life Solution India Ltd are two different entities. The Complainant has purchased these units from M/s Croma Ghaziabad. The registered office of the Hitachi Home and Life Solution of India Ltd is in Ahmadabad. The product in question was serviced in Ghaziabad, as such the Forum at Delhi has no Jurisdiction.  The product in question is out of warranty. Complainant has not produced any expert report regarding the defect in the Air conditioner. The present complaint is not maintainable. Rest of the allegations has been denied.

            Both the parties have filed their respective Affidavit in support of their pleadings.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            In the Affidavit of Sh. Mohit Sharma filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1, the one and only issue which has been emphasized is the maintainability of this complaint before the Consumer Forum at Delhi. This product was purchased from the Respondent No.2 and no part of cause of action has arisen within the Territorial Jurisdiction of Govt. of NCT Delhi. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company (2009) (6) ALD 157(SC) and also Indian Air Lines Corporation Vs Consumer Education And Research Society and Anr. II (1991) CPJ 686, Inter Globe Aviation Limited Vs. N.Satchidanand (2011)7S.C.C.463. This is an admitted fact that the two Air Conditioners are installed at the residence of the complainant at Ghaziabad. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Sonic Surgical (Supra) complaint can only be filed where the cause of action has in fact arises. We have to see in the light of the allegations made in the complaint and evidence filed, as to whether any cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The Counsel for the complainant draw our attention to the facts and averments made in the complaint. They further argued that the same have not been specifically denied in the written statement. In the Affidavit of Respondent, the contents verified on oath by the Complainant have not been controverted. Dr.Divakar Shukal in his Affidavit has specifically noted that whenever he made complaint, he made it to the Respondent No.1 and to the Respondent No.2 Customer Care in Para No.8 of the Affidavit, it has been stated that he called the Respondent No.1 for the replacement of the Air Conditioner at the same not working properly and were having manufacturing defects. The Engineers and Mechanics of the Respondent No.1 on check have opined that they required to be replaced and the sanction has to be given by the Respondent No.1. He has made a specific allegations approaching Respondent office at Ahmadabad. He has given complaint numbers which have not been denied by the Respondent. This fact have also not been challenged  that aggrieved by the Apathy on the part of the Respondent No.1 and their acknowledgment of not resolving the issue in the E.mail dated 14/09/2012 and 15/09/2012. Complainant made the complaint to core center of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Division Department of Consumer Affairs Govt. of India vide complaint ID No. 45776/2/2012 dated 20/09/2012. It has been argued by the Complainant Ld. Counsel that Complainant was constantly pursuing the issue with the Respondent No.1 at Delhi and they were not resolving the issue. The Complainant has placed on record the proof of lodging the complaint with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs which has been acknowledged and proceed at Delhi. In the E mail of February 2015, the Respondent No.1 has acknowledged that I-Clean motor were needed to be replaced and they will provide three month additional warranty. This E mail was issued by Hitachi Home and Life Solution India Ltd from their Delhi office. The detailed complaint was also made to the office at Barakhamba Road at Delhi. Again the same office of the Respondent responded to the complaint of the Complainant admitting the claim of the defective motors and apologizing for delay, it was also issued from Delhi. In these circumstances the plea taken by the Respondent that no part of cause of action has arisen at Delhi is without any basis. The Evidence on record clearly suggests that the complainant was pursuing his grievance regarding the defects of those Air Conditioners in their office at Delhi. In these circumstances cause of action have been arisen for want of their non fulfillment of their obligation as admitted in the E mails placed on record. The Respondent has also taken the plea that the complainant has not filed any technical report or expert opinion that the two Air Conditioners are suffering from manufacturing defect. The self admission of the Respondent admitting the facts that the motor installed in these two Air Conditioners were found to be defective and because of these two motors the Air Conditioners were not working. This is also admitted in their E mail that the motors are not readily available and they are ready to grant additional warranty on installation of the motors. This clearly establishes that the products sold to the complainant were defective and were not of the specification as offered by the Respondent. This is not only the case of unfair trade practice, but also a case of deficiency in service. The Air Conditioners are not an item of Luxury these days, they are necessary for comfortable living. The Complainant has invested around Rs.1,00,000/- for comfort but he has paid this amount for his discomfort and the present litigation. The Respondent on the contrary have not placed on record any proof or evidence that the defects in two Air Conditioners were ever rectified or removed. There is no denial from their side that the complaint which has been made were not made. Such large number of complaints and there not rectification by the Respondent amount to deficiency of service. Setting the product with defective motors which are otherwise not available in the market amounts to unfair trade practice.

            We allow this complaint. We direct the Respondent to refund to the Complainant amount of Rs.97,715/- with 9% interest thereon from 27/05/2012 till this amount is finally paid. We further award the compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain, agony and inconvenience caused to the Complainant. This amount shall also include the cost of litigation. This amount should be paid within 45 days from the date of this order. if not paid Complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest over this amount also till it is finally paid. On receiving the amount as ordered above Complainant shall return to the Respondent the two units  of Air Conditioners with accessories as per the invoice.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)

         MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT