Judgment : Dt.6.11.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Ajoy Kumar Ghosh, son of late Subal Chandra Ghosh, aged about 55 years, residing at P-439, Parnasree Pally, Rajsree Apartment, Flat No.201, P.O. & P.S.-Parnasree Pally, Kolkata-700 060 against Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd, formerly known as Hitachi Home & Life Solution (India) Ltd., KB-22, 8^th floor, Bhakta Tower, Salt Lake City, Sector-III, Kolkata-700 091, praying for a direction upon the O.P. to provide a fresh and new refrigerator by remaining old one and a direction upon the OP to return the  price paid by Complainant and also for monetary compensation of Rs.34,000/- for low quality product and pay compensation of Rs.34,500/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and agony.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased on refrigerator  on 13.12.2015 having brand of “Hitachi RH 350 PNDD4K SLS/318 Ltr. at a price of Rs.34,500/-. After one year and four months some technical problems were found in the refrigerator. Complainant requested through customer care of Hitachi for  checking and proper service of refrigerator and in place of engineer Faizal Ali, one  ordinary technician named D. Jana attended the refrigerator and recommended to change the cooling coil and refilling of gas. Complainant paid Rs.500/- to the technician as visiting charge. Complainant again requested to recheck the refrigerator by an engineer or by other experienced technician so that genuine fault can be found. Service engineer having mobile No.8336930022, informed Complainant that  he will attend on 13.4.2017 to recheck the refrigerator and Complainant took leave from his office and waited for him. On 15^th  evening the mobile number of the engineer was found  switched off. The Complainant send e-mail repeatedly on 11.4.2017 to 14.4.2017 and also sent him a message on 15.4.2016 about his promise to attend the refrigerator but of no use. Complainant lives with his 80 yrs. Old mother and ill wife. Complainant is a senior  management officer of  State Bank of India and had to attend everyday for meeting. He had pushed in mental agony. Since OP did not resolve the defect of refrigerator, Complainant filed this case.

            OP did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against OP.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant did not file affidavit-in-chief and only filed BNA in which he has narrated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for providing a fresh and new refrigerator by  removing the old one and also to pay the price of the refrigerator as compensation an Rs.34,000/-  as compensation for mental agony and harassment & litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            In this regard, Complainant has filed certain copies of documents which reveal that Complainant purchased the refrigerator on 13.12.2015. Further, it appears that after one year and four months some technical problems were found regarding the service. Complainant sent several mails but the refrigerator could not be brought into order. In order to substantiate these facts, Complainant has filed copy of the e-mails which reveal that Complainant took up the matter with OP, but he was not satisfied with the service. Complainant has not filed any warranty card or document to establish that the defect which cropped up were under warranty. It is the case of complaint that he paid Rs.2,325/- for service of the refrigerator. But service could not be effected. In absence of warranty card, it is clear that Complainant has no right against OP for getting the defect removed. Accordingly, Complainant failed to prove the allegations of the complaint.

            Mentioning of payment of Rs.2,325/- for service of refrigerator is a matter between Complainant and the service provider. No document is forthcoming to establish that OP was bound to remove the defects because normally the defect pointed out by the engineer, appears to be beyond the warranty period.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/249/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.