BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.195/17.
Date of instt.:24.7.2017.
Date of Decision:26.3.2018.
Suresh Nagpal s/o Shri Ladha Ram, r/o H.No.306, Sector 19(1), HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Johnson Control Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd., C/o Boxman Logistic Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.1395, 37 Mile Stone, NH-8, Village Khandsa, near Hero Honda Chowk, Gurgaon.
- M/s Dev Electronics, Rishi Colony, HUDA, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present : Shri Deepak Seth, Adv. for the complainant.
OPs ex parte. (Though Shri Vikram Tiwari, Adv. appeared for OP No.1).
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has purchased a Split AC 1.5 TR of make Hitachi from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.25801402 dt. 20.3.2017. It is further alleged that after ten days of its purchase, the said AC occurred a problem in the night at about 09:30 PM as one abnormal sound was coming from it and moreover there was no cooling. It is further alleged that he duly lodged his complaint with OPs vide complaint ID No.17032910741. It is further alleged that on said complaint, the officials of OP No.2 visited his house and they thoroughly checked the AC but they failed to rectify his complaint, rather the said officials of OP No.2 told him that their engineer will come from Karnal to rectify the said problem. It is further alleged that no engineer from Karnal ever visited his house, rather the owner of OP No.2 Mr. Dev himself came to his house and after investigation, he told him that one nut of the blower is not running properly and speedly and this was the main reason of the noise in the AC and less cooling and rectify the problem. It is further alleged that in the month of May 2017, one another problem occurred in the said AC as after the electricity cut by the Deptt., whenever the electricity comes, the said AC did not work effectively for 2-3 hours as there was no cooling in the said AC. It is further alleged that he again lodged a complaint on 14.5.2017 vide complaint ID No.17051402436 with OP No.1. It is further alleged that on the next day again the official of OP No.2 visited his house and after investigation, they informed him that AC PCP is not working properly and requested him to count the blinking lights, whenever the above said problem occurs again. It is further alleged that on the instructions of OP No.2, on the very next day, he counted the blinking lights and told them that the light will blink for 12 times. It is further alleged that after investigation the OP No.2 duly placed an order of AC PCP with OP No.1 and his said problem was rectified by OPs after a gap of 1 and ½ months i.e. on 26.6.2017. It is further alleged that even after 12 days of said rectification by the OPs, the AC PCP stopped working and he lodged a complaint with OPs vide complaint ID No.17071102304 dt. 11.7.2017. It is further alleged that from the date of its purchase, the said AC is not working properly as the OP No.1 has supplied sub standard AC to him as it was having manufacturing defect. It is further alleged that he requested time and again to the OPs either to refund amount of Rs.39,041/- or to replace the said defective AC with new one, but the OPs are adamant and refused to accede his request on 14.7.2017. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, no one appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2 and they were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dt. 15.9.2017 and 15.1.2018 respectively. On 26.3.2018, when the case was fixed for complainant’s evidence, Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of OP No.1.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence on 26.3.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased a Split AC 1.5 TR of make Hitachi from OP No.1. He further argued that after ten days of its purchase, the said AC occurred a problem in the night at about 09:30 PM as one abnormal sound was coming from it and moreover there was no cooling. He further argued that he duly lodged his complaint with OPs and the officials of OP No.2 visited his house but could not rectify the problem. He further argued that no engineer from Karnal ever visited his house, rather the owner of OP No.2 Mr. Dev himself came to his house and rectify the problem. He further argued that in the month of May 2017, one another problem occurred in the said AC and there was no cooling in the said AC. He further argued that he again lodged a complaint on 14.5.2017 with OP No.1 and on the next day again the official of OP No.2 visited his house and after investigation, they informed him that AC PCB is not working properly and requested him to count the blinking lights, whenever the above said problem occurs again. He further argued that on the instructions of OP No.2, on the very next day, he counted the blinking lights and told them that the light will blink for 12 times. He further argued that after investigation the OP No.2 duly placed an order of AC PCB with OP No.1 and his said problem was rectified by OPs after a gap of 1 and ½ months i.e. on 26.6.2017. He further argued that even after 12 days of said rectification by the OPs, the AC PCB stopped working and he lodged a complaint with OPs on dt. 11.7.2017. He further argued that from the date of its purchase, the said AC is not working properly as the OP No.1 has supplied sub standard AC to him as it was having manufacturing defect. This way, the OPs are deficient in service.
6. Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the AC in question was repaired twice by the OP No.2 and there was no fault in the said AC.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased a Split AC-1.5TR Hitachi for a sum of Rs.39,041/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.25801402 dt. 20.3.2017 (Ex.C1). The complainant produced Field Call Report dt. 11.7.2017 as Ex.C4 and perusal of said document also shows that in the Column “ENGINEER OBSERVATION” it is mentioned that “PCB Defective Not Work” and in the column “ACTION TAKEN CODE”, it is mentioned that “PCB Defective Pending”. To support his contention, the complainant produced his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4, whereas, OPs did not appear and opted to proceed against ex parte. However, on 26.3.2018, Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate represented OP No.1 without getting the ex parte proceeding set aside. It is pertinent to mention here that neither written statement was filed by the OPs nor any evidence was led. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. From the facts and evidence of the case, it is clear that within four months, the AC in question created problem three times which indicates that the AC in question is a defective one. The OPs have also failed to resolve the problem of the AC in question till today despite lodging the complaint by the complainant on 11.7.2017. Hence, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the AC which was sold by the OPs to the complainant was a defective one and the OPs have adopted the act of unfair trade practice in selling the defective AC to the complainant. Therefore, the OPs are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the defective AC of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill/Invoice No.25801402 dated 20.3.2017. However, it is made clear that if the said AC as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the OPs, then the OPs shall refund Rs.39,041/- the cost of AC to the complainant. The OPs are also burdened with costs of Rs.4,500/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.3.2018.
(Parmod Kumar), (Jagmal Singh),
Member. President.
Present : Shri Deepak Seth, Adv. for the complainant.
OPs ex parte. (Though Shri Vikram Tiwari, Adv. appeared for OP No.1).
Arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:27.3.2018. Member President.
