Date of Filing : 27/02/2017
Order No. 12 dt. 06/03/2018
The case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a 1.5 ton Hitachi AC Machine from M/s Great Eastern Appliance (P) Ltd. (o.p.-2) at a consideration of Rs.42,400/- with Invoice no.DHSA/1516/10781 dated 10.09.2015, and the said consideration was paid partly in cash and remaining amount of Rs28260/- on finance. The delivery date of AC Machine as it is evident from the invoice was 10.09.2015 but the AC machine had been installed after 5 months in the 1st quarter of 2016. According to the complainant the AC machine was not functioning properly after it had been running only for period of seven days from the date of installation. Complainant informed the matter of non functioning of the AC Machine to M/s Cool Care, 8/A, Jadu Mitra Lane, Kolkata- 700004 (op-3), the ‘Hitachi Service Centre’, over phone and they attended the machine for repairing. The service personnel/ technician of op-3 handled the machine and it had been tried to be operated on and such operation made the machine to run on another one week only. Subsequently the AC machine had gone out of order at least eight times and the technician of the op-3 came for attending the machine which had been tried to move on and every time, the technician recorded their report in the job sheet ie, Field Call Report. Complainant managed to keep the Field Call Reports (job sheet) dated 04.07.2016, 08.07.2016, 22.07.2016, 29.07.2016, 02.02.2017 On 26.07.2016 complainant informed the o.p.2 in writing about the irregular functioning of the AC machine . He apprised about the nonfunctioning of the AC Machine again on 21.09.2016 to the o.p.2. Complainant also knocked o.p.1 about the non-functioning of the AC machine. Immediately after the date of installation complainant used to bear undesirable suffering for a period of twelve months out of the very poor service of the Hitachi make AC Machine. For getting regular service from the defective AC Machine complainant entreated every officer/ technician of op-2 & op-3 to run on the AC Machine. Complainant knocked responsible personnel, technician, Sales Manager ops through phone no 9748278816,9320607121,7439038366, 8336929465, 8334906670, 9674106872. According to them the machine would be replaced if it cannot be repaired. But the machine could not been repaired or replaced. At last finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint praying for direction upon the o.ps for refund of the amount or replacement of the AC machine along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
O.p.2 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In the written version it is stated that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, speculative, containing false allegations upon the o.p.2. The instant complaint is not maintainable as the complainant did not furnish any expert opinion to substantiate the complaint and therefore it is liable to be rejected in limini. O.P-2 has submitted that the complainant came to this Ld. Forum with the complaint against defects of the said split AC machine regarding problem of non-functioning of AC machine and cooling problem which arose on April, 2016. The o.p.2 duly communicated such complaint to the manufacture and the manufacture sent their mechanic for repair. The o.p.3 being service centre repaired the machine upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The o.p.2 has also submitted that op-2 is a dealer and not the manufacturer. Being a dealer it had no role regarding repairing or replacement of the said AC machine. Being dealer o.p.2 after receiving complainant immediately referred the same before the manufacturer for necessary action. In between the complainant and the manufacturer o.p.2 acted only as a communicator/mediator and the o.p.2 has no role to play.
O.p.2 also submitted that though the complainant raised allegation about defective AC machine but failed to mention the nature of defects. The entire communication was between complainant and o.p.2 and its service personnel. The o.p.2 has no knowledge about the matter and therefore cannot say anything. The o.p.2 further stated that the complainant was more interested for replacement of entire AC machine instead of replacement of damaged parts if any. It is therefore prayed that your honour be pleased to accept the w/v and considering the facts and circumstances of the case your honour be pleased to dismiss the complaint.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether there was any defect in the goods sold by the company ;
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
We have gone through the petition of complaint, pleadings of the party and evidences in particular. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased a Hitachi 1.5 Ton AC Machine on 27.10.2013 from M/s Great Eastern Appliance Pvt Ltd, an authorized dealer of Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. against consideration of Rs.42,400/- But after one week from the date of installation of the AC Machine it had not been functioning well resulting no cooling effect according to the engineer’s observation noted in the Field Call Report dt 29.07.2016. The engineers of the op-3 frequently attended the AC machine for repairing within the warranty period and reported replacement of the main PCB. But ultimately no tangible change in creating cooling effect out of the machine had been observed. The service personnel/ technician of op-3 handled the machine and it had been operated on and such operation made the machine to run on another one week only. Subsequently the AC machine had gone out of order at least eight times and the technician of the op-3 came for attending the machine which had been tried to move on and every time, the technician recorded their report in the job sheet. Complainant managed to keep the Field Call Reports (job sheet) dated 04.07.2016, 08.07.2016, 22.07.2016, 29.07.2016, 02.02.2017 On 26.07.2016 complainant informed the o.p.2 in writing about the irregular functioning of the AC machine . He apprised the case of the AC Machine again on 20.09.2016 to the o.p.2. Immediately after the date of installation complainant had to bear undesirable suffering for a period of twelve months out of installation of the Hitachi make AC Machine. In order to prove the case the complainant sworn an affidavit of evidence in support of the contention of the complaint and filed the documents in support of his claim including the photocopies of Tax Invoice no.DH/SA/1516/10781 dtd 10.09.2015, Field Call Reports dated 04.07.2016, 08.07.2016, 22.07.2016, 29.07.2016, 02.02.2017. Complainant also knocked responsible personnel, technician, Sales Manager of the ops through phone no 9748278816, 9320607121, 7439038366, 8336929465, 8334906670, 9674106872. According to them the machine would be replaced if it cannot be repaired. But their assurance was futile by their deeds ie, the machine could not be repaired by the authorized service centre and the op-1 had not tried for its replacement.
The o.p.2 has also submitted that op-2 is a dealer and not the manufacturer. Being a dealer it had no role regarding repairing or replacement of the said AC machine. Being dealer o.p.2 after receiving the complaint immediately referred the same before the manufacturer for necessary action. It is curious enough to be noted that having no role regarding repairing or replacement of the AC Machine op-2 participated in the proceeding of the case and did nothing for the proceeding of the case. On the other op-3 had the role regarding repairing of the AC Machine and it had tried to repair the machine but failed. Again, op-1 had the role to play on the failure of op-3 regarding the repair of the AC Machine. But such role of op-1 had not been undertaken by op-1. O.p-1, the manufacturer of the AC Machine, in spite of receiving notice and allegation against the non-functioning of their product showed their back to the due process of law by not attending the call of this Forum. The company remained absent and did not submit the written version
Considering the submissions of the complainant and on perusal of the materials on record we find that AC Machine practically yielded ineffective performance in producing cooling effect in the vicinity of the machine. According to the report of the engineers of the service company the defect in the goods (AC Machine) could not be annihilated during the whole period of warranty of the machine and that had been admitted by the technicians of the service company in their Field Call Reports. OP-2 had tried to manage the awkward situation out of non functioning of the machine by extending warranty period of the AC Machine in writing on the body of Invoice for a further period of five months. To repair the injury and harassment of the complainant op-1 and op-2 ultimately did nothing. The defect in the AC Machine is inherent one and it’s ill effect started immediately after installation and it could not be repaired even during twelve months of the warranty period in spite of all possible attempts by the op-3.
we, therefore, have no other alternative but to accept the case of the complainant. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly covering all points.
Hence, ordered.
that the case no. 69/2017 is allowed with cost against the o.p-2 & op-3 and ex-parte against op-1. The o.p-1 & op-2 are, jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 42,400/- (Rupees forty two thousand four hundred) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. On the date of receipt of aforesaid amount complainant is directed to return the AC Machine in question to o.p-1 or op-2.
