Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/857

M.L LUTHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HITACHI & LIFE SOLUTIONS ( INDIA) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 15.02.2016

First Appeal No. 857/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 03.06.2011 passed in complaint case No. 663/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058)

In the matter of:

M.L. Luthra

V.B.-58, Lane No. 2

Varinder Nagar, Janakpuri

New Delhi – 110 058                                    ………….Appellant     

•  

 

Hitachi Home & Life Solution

India Ltd. & Ors.

Head Office & Works,

Hitachi Complex, Karan Kadi,

Mehsana-3827227, Gujrat (India)                   …..………Respondent

 

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK              -        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?               Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                           Yes

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Judgment

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi.  Vide said orders, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 
2. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their status in the complaint.  Complainant/appellant Sh. M.L. Luthra had admittedly purchased an air-conditioner of ‘Hitachi’ make (twin motors) from M/s Better Deal Electronic Pvt. Ltd., B-3/67, Janakpuri, New Delhi (in short OP-2) for an amount of Rs. 24,100/- on 04.07.2006.  Grievance of the complainant was that after purchase, air conditioner started troubling, temperature had its display remaining at ‘0’.  On a complaint made to OP-2, an engineer attended the complaint.  Complainant again complained that the AC was then giving loud noise.  Complainant sent an e-mail on 02.07.2009.  Again an engineer came and changed the gas of the air conditioner.  Rupees 2700/- were charged.  Again being dissatisfied, the complainant filed the present complaint for a refund of the purchase price and payment of compensation of Rs. 1,00.000/-.
3. Both the OPs remained absent despite service in the District Forum.  They were proceeded against ex-party.  Ld. District Forum observed as under:-
4.  
4. In his present appeal, the complainant has simply reiterated the facts disclosed in the complaint.
5. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the OPs replaced AC of the complainant on 31.12.2015 on their own despite the fact that the complaint of the complainant stood dismissed by the Ld. District Forum.  Complainant has not lodged any complaint either with OP-1 or with OP-2 after the replacement of the AC by the OPs on 31.12.2015.  In the circumstances, the grievance of the complainant/appellant stands fully redressed. 
6. Ld. trial forum had also rightly held that the complainant had filed complaint after using the AC for three years. OP had attended to the complaints and replaced the necessary parts even though the AC was out of warranty.  On merits too, the appeal is decided on merits.  As on date with the replacement of the AC with a new piece, I am left with no option but to dismiss the appeal. Appeal is hence dismissed.  File be sent to records.

 (N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)