Delhi

North East

CC/220/2016

MR. MONU PANWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HITACHI - Opp.Party(s)

12 Oct 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 220/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Monu Panwar S/o Sh. Rampal Singh R/o H.No. E-185/B, Gali No.6, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-93.	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Hitachi Home & Life Solutions India Ltd 35, Patparganj, Ind. Area, Delhi-92.   Techno King Home Appliances A-69, Hardev Puri, 100 Feet Road, Shahdara, Delhi-93.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

22.08.2016 12.10.2018 12.10.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he had purchased two new 1.5 ton window AC bearing model no. RAT 518 HTD from OP2 manufactured by OP1 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 65,000/- inclusive of Vat and Sales tax on 05.02.2016 vide Bill/ Retail Invoice no. R5363. However, one of the ACs started giving icing problem in front region and stopped giving cooling soon after its installation in April 2016. The complainant lodged multiple complaints to the service centre of OP1 between April 2016 to May 2016 but was giving mere assurances of Gas choking problem needing to be refilled replaced but nobody came to redress the problem. The complainant wrote several e-mails to the OP1 customer care in the month of July 2016 to various level of its management voicing his grievance remaining unredressed despite engineers coming and going without rectifying the defects AC in question. Lastly the complainant wrote a reminder letter dated 26.07.2016 to the Director of OP1 at his Ahmadabad (Gujarat) office failing which he shall be constrained to go to consumer court. However, no action was taken by OP1 on the said reminder letter and left with no alternative, the complainant was constrained to file present complaint before this Forum against the OPs praying for issuance of directions to OPs to refund Rs. 32,500/- towards the cost of defective AC, pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental torture, agony, harassment, disturbance and loss of business and inconvenience and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.

The complainant has attached copy of retail invoice dated 05.02.2016, copy of reminder letter dated 26.07.2016 to OP1 with postal receipts, copy of photographs of faulty AC showing icing problem, copy of e-mails dated 13.07.2016, 18.07.2016, 25.07.2016 and 29.07.2016 to OP2

2. Notices were issued to the OPs on 09.09.2016 which was served on OP1 on 21.09.2016 and on OP2 on 20.09.2016 respectively. On 16.11.2016, OP1 filed its written statement. However OP2 failed to appear despite last opportunity granted to it on the previous date of hearing and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement filed by OP1 it took the preliminary objection that the complainant had used the said product with complete satisfaction without any technical issue and there was no manufacturing defect in the said AC and that the complainant had neither produced report of any laboratory recognized by central government/ state government or organization established under any law which was against the settled proposition of law that any allegation of manufacturing defect has to be supported by an expert opinion / expert advice by way of a technical report. OP1 placed reliance judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Vikram Bajaj vs Hind Motors India Ltd & Anr. 2009 (II) CLT 670  in which Hon’ble National Commission held that where the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove that the good is suffering from manufacturing or latent defect, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP1 further took the defence that the complainant adamantly demanded refund / replacement of the AC the defect in which was to be resolved by the service provider and in light of the settled law in Shivprasad Paper Industries Vs Senior Machinery Company I (2006) CPJ 92 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission had held that an equipment of machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired. Lastly OP1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint and deletion of its name from the array of parties on grounds that there is no deficiency of service on its part and no manufacturing defects in the AC in question.
3. Rejoinder in rebuttal to the defence of OP1 was filed by the complainant reiterating his grievance.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant on 25.01.2017 in which the complainant placed on record bill No.258 book no. 06 dated 13.01.2017 by which the complainant received checking report of the default/ problem in the AC issued by M/s Dew Point Refrigeration, authorized Voltas Service Center in which it mentioned the capillary and compressor problem / fault in the said AC to buttress his allegation of defective AC.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP1 which was reproduction of its written statement.
6. Written arguments were filed by both OP1 and complainant on 24.05.2017 and 23.08.2017 respectively. Subsequently, on 13.12.2017 the complainant filed a DVD as video proof for showing the fault in the AC in question. Thereafter the matter was listed in January and March for settlement which could not be effected / arrived at since complainant was seeking replacement of the subject AC and OP1 offered free of cost repair with three months extended warranty thereon. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for oral arguments which were addressed by complainant on 03.05.2018 and OP1 on 12.10.2018.
7. We have heard the oral arguments addressed by both the parties and have carefully perused the documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties in their respective complaint / defence.

It is not in dispute that the subject AC was purchased by the complainant from OP2 manufactured by OP1 on 05.02.2016. The dispute arose post installation of the same in April 2016 when the complainant has alleged icing problem in one of the ACs and no cooling which problem was not rectified / redressed / attended to by the customer care of OP1 despite complaints, telephonic and written lodged by the complainant between April to July 2016 in which he has alleged that no technician / engineer of OP1 attended to the problem in the AC. The written statement filed by OP1 is rather cryptic / evasive and a generalized written statement without any specific defence pertinent to the present case. OP1 has failed to rebut the allegation of the complainant of failure to rectify the problem in the subject AC which is conspicuously noticeable from the very fact that not a single jobsheet / jobcard has been placed on record by OP1 to prove its bald contention that it had duly attended the problem raised by the complainant and had always been diligent in providing their services. The OP1 has miserably failed to counter the allegations of the complainant by cogent documentary evidence in its support and is trying to take refuge under the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission of technical report / expert evidence and non replacement of machinery which can be repaired which it cannot be allowed to due to its own acts of omission / inaction in failure to attend to the grievance of the complainant.

We therefore, do not find force in the baseless defence taken by OP1 and are in agreement with the case of the complainant that his grievance related to defect in the AC was not addressed / solved by the OP1 despite repeated follow-ups to which OP1 had no defence much less a rebuttal.

8. We allow the present complaint on merits and direct the OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally as manufacturer and dealer to refund of Rs. 32,500/- towards cost of AC. We also award compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for mental torture, agony, harassment, disturbance and loss of business and inconvenience and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant payable by the OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on  12.10.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member