Delhi

East Delhi

CC/343/2015

MR.CHARU - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI PRAKASH ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2015

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          343/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  28/07/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 17/09/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          18/09/2019  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar 

R/o  G 507, Metro Vihar, DMRC

Staff Quarters, Shastri Park, Delhi 110053.…………..……….Complainant                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

The Manager,   

Hitachi Homes & Life Solutions (India) Ltd.

9^th Floor, Abhijit Meethakali Six Roads,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380006……………………………………..….Opponent

 

Complainant……………………………………Mr Rishikesh Kumar Advo.  

Opponent ...…………………………………..Prashant Kappor, Adv.  Kapoor & Co.

 

Quorum            Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                           Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                           Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case

 

Complainant purchased Hitachi window AC 1Ton model no. RAW 511KUD, the seller M/s Vansh Electronics, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, for a sum of Rs 25500/- vide invoice no. 02 on dated 19/04/2016 (Ex CW1/1). The Ac within 15 days (from 04/05/2016) developed low cooling problem, so lodged complaint with OP/ Hitachi/manufacturer of goods vide complaint no. 16050405695 (Ex CW1/2). Next day, service engineer came and after checking, gas was found less so it was filled and re installed. Again same problem occurred on 18/05/2016, so complaint was lodged with OP and their service technician checked on 19/05/2016 and told that the display was defective and required replacement (Ex CW1/3,3A&3B). When no replacement done, so lodged complaint also with National Help line and sent all complaints to OP.

When no reply received, filed this complaint and demanded replacement of defective AC with new AC or refund the cost of AC Rs 25000/-with 18% interest per annum and compensation for harassment Rs 15,000/-and cost of mental agony Rs 15,000/-.

  

OP in their written statement denied all allegations alleged in complaint and stated that there was no manufacturing defect. After proper checking, product was installed by their service technician. There was no evidence of manufacturing defect ever reported by their service technician as per job sheets on record. Complainant had not filed any evidence of deficiency and manufacturing defect. Based on citation, “Vikram Babaj vs Hind Motors (India) Ltd & others, 2009 (II) CLT 670, where it was laid down that complainant had to prove the manufacturing defect by any evidence. So here in this case, no such evidence was submitted by complainant, hence this complaint may be dismissed.

 

Complainant filed rejoinder to written statements and denied all the replies submitted by OP. Complainant relied on all his facts and evidences on record. Complainant also submitted evidences through his own affidavit and reaffirmed that evidences as (Ex CW1/1) invoice and complaints and job sheets (Ex CW1/3,3A,3B) were sufficient to prove that the product had manufacturing defect. So, his AC be ordered for replacement or refund of cost.

       

OP submitted evidences on affidavit through Mr Rupesh Jain, Authorised Representative of OP and reaffirmed on oath that whenever complaints were received from complainant, were promptly attended under standard service warranty conditions. The said AC had gas leakage which was promptly rectified and gas was filled and Ac was running well. The said AC had no technical or manufacturing defect and present complaint had no merit, so complaint may be dismissed. 

Both the parties submitted their written submission and taken on record. Complainant submitted two citations as C.N. Ananthram vs M/s Fiat India Ltd, SLP (C) 21178-80/2009, SC and M/s Daikin Air-conditioning India vs Mandeep Kaur, FA 58/2015, SCDRC, Chandigarh.

In former citation, it was laid down that presence of inherent manufacturing defect duly proved by expert, than OP would replace the goods or refund its cost. In later citation, rectifying defect was removed and warranty was extended.   

 

Arguments were heard and after perusal of record, order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was admitted by OP that the said AC had no manufacturing defect and complainant had failed to prove by any evidence. It was seen that gas leakage was noted within 15 days from its purchase and even rectifying and filling gas, cooling problem was existing.

 

Hence we come to the conclusion that complaint has merit and that being so we direct OP to replace the compressor with 30 days from the receiving of this order as compressor has five years warranty. Repeated loss of gas means there must be some defect in the compressor in AC. OP will also extend one year warranty as problem started within one months of its purchase. We also award compensation of Rs 10,000/- for harassment. The order has to be complied within the time essence otherwise interest of 9% will be applicable after 30 days on the awarded amount.   

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per Regulation 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under regulation 20 (1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                   Mrs Harpreet Kaur, Member                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                

                                               Shri Sukhdev Singh President