CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/181/20

          Date of Institution:-    07.10.2020

          Order Reserved on:- 24.10.2024

                       Date of Decision:-      13.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

DebDulalDutta

Flat No.462, Om Aptts, Sec.14B,

Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Jhohson Controls – Hitachi Air Conditioning Company

Corporate Office: 301, 3^rd Floor,

DMRC Building, New Ashok Nagar Metro Station,

New Delhi – 96

.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 14.05.2019 he has purchased Hitachi AC for Rs.34,000/-. The AC has not been working since the beginning of the season so he sent a request on 17.06.2020 on the customer care of OP upon which three technicians visited within a week but failed to repair the defect. The last technician told that some parts need to be replaced. He called the service center after two weeks upon which Mr. Jha of Suntorics Care Pvt. Ltd. told that he will get it done by tomorrow but no one has turned up to check the AC. The customer care helpline always replied that request is pending. Four months have elapsed but AC is neither repaired not replaced. He has a small baby and they have to pass sleep rest nights due to non-working of AC. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply with the averments that OP-1 is into the business of manufacturing consumer durables like window/split ACs and refrigerator etc. On 14.05.2019, complainant has purchased AC from Vijay Sales for a sum of Rs.34,000/- with one year warranty and five year warranty for compressor. The allegations made by the complainant are baseless. There is no material showing manufacturing defect in AC. The necessary services were given to the complainant on the receipt of complaint. It is wrong that AC has not been working since beginning. The technician visited the premises of the complainant and service was duly done and thereafter call was closed on 18.06.2020. The technician has everytime provided solution to the customer. The OP is ready to repair the AC free of cost but a replacement of the AC does not come under the standard terms of warranty card. The delay in the service arose only during Covid-19. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinderwherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statements.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and relied upon the documents attached with the complaint.
6. The OP did not appear and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 30.10.2023.

7. We haveheard the complainant and perused the entire material on record.

8. The purchase of AC by complainant is not in dispute. It is admitted by OP that complaint regarding the AC was received which was duly resolved and complaint was closed on 18.06.2020.

9. The complainant has annexed e-mails written to Customer service center of Hitachi showing that problem in the AC has not been rectified though first technician visited on 19.05.2020. The email dated 22.09.2020 from the complainant shows that the technician firstly visited on 19.05.2020 meaning by there that complaint must have been made prior to 19.05.2020. The OP has not led any evidence to show that technician visited on 18.06.2020 has rectified the problem in AC and closed the complaint. The mere reply of OP cannot be considered in the absence of any evidence from the OP. It shows that the complaints given by the complainant to the customer care of Hitachi were not resolved that is why complainant has been kept on sending emails to the OP.

10. It was the duty of the service center of the OP to resolve the issue raised by the complainant. The OP has not resolved the issues. The AC is not allegedly working in the absence of fixing the problem in the AC. This tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of OP.

11. There is no evidence on record that there is any manufacturing defect in the AC so the question of replacement of AC does not arise.
12. The problems in the AC have not been fixed by the service center of the OP meaning there by that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the extent that OP shall fix the problems in the AC bearing model no.ESFS512HCEA. The complainant has undergone mental harassment due to non-working of AC as a result he is entitled for compensation on this score. The complainant is entitled for compensation for Rs.10,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 13.11.2024.