Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/151/2023

AMAR NATH SON OF SH. JAGU RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOHNSON CONTROLS-HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING AND OTHER - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN CHAUHAN ADV

28 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

Appeal No.	:	A/151/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	04/07/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	28/05/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Amar Nath son of Late Jogu Ram, Resident of House No.1843/5, LIC Colony, Mundi Kharar, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

….Appellant

Vs.

 

1.     Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited, 9^th Floor, Abhijeet 01, Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmadabad at Gujarat – 380006.

 

       Corporate Office: Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited, 301, Third Floor, DMRC Building, New Ashoka Nagar, Metro Station, Delhi – 110096.

 

Area Office: Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited, SCO 57, 2^nd Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.     Hitachi Service Centre, E-89, Near HDFC Bank, Vidya Path, Sector 37, Chandigarh.

 

3.     Shree Sai Enterprises, SCO 97, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

…. Respondents

 

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 & 2
		Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte vide order dated 05.09.2023.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

1.         This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.05.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it disposed of the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/1054/2019, in the following manner:-

“6.     Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice & equity, we deem it proper to dispose of the present complaint with directions to OP No.1- Johnson Controls – Hitachi air Conditioning India Limited to repair the AC in question, making it fully functional, free of cost.  However, it shall be entitled to charge cost of a replaced part(s), if any.  The complaint stands disposed off accordingly.

          Pending application(s), if any, also stands  disposed off.

2.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he purchased one Split Air Conditioner of Hitachi make from Shree Sai Enterprises (OP No.3) on 08.06.2018 for an amount of Rs.47,000/- vide Annexure C-1.  After installation of AC, the complainant in July, 2018 lodged complaint with OPs about the cooling of AC, which was attended by the OP Official.  Thereafter, in June, 2019, the complainant again lodged complaint with OP about the problem in AC in question, whereupon the official of OP Company after inspecting the AC, demanded ₹500/- to refill the carbon to check the proper fault.  Thereafter, the official of the OP No.1 Company again checked the AC in question on 21.06.2019 and charged ₹3000/- from the complainant for refilling the gas.  However, the fault in the AC remained the same, so on 12.09.2019, again a complaint was lodged with the OPs which was attended by the official of the OP No.1 Company on 14.09.2019 and raised fresh demand for gas filling, labour charges and visiting charges.  Thereafter, the complainant again lodged complaint about the faulty working of the AC in question but his complaint was closed saying that customer was not contactable.  Later, the officials of the OP visited the complainant on 18.09.2019 and demanded the charges again to solve the problem to which complainant refused.  It was submitted that the OP supplied a defective AC to the complainant and the same required multiple times repairs within first year of its purchase. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.         In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, Johnson Controls – Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. submitted that whenever the complainant approached the OP Company for any issue with the said product, the same was duly addressed by technician of OP Company. It was pleaded that in June, 2019 the complainant approached the answering OP for some issues with the said product, whereupon the technical person of the answering OP Company conducted all necessary repairs in which the outdoor controller was replaced and gas charging was apparently done and apart from that the said product was working fine in all parameters.  It was submitted that all the work was fully acknowledged by the complainant by signing Job Sheet dated 21.06.2019.  It was asserted that since the product was out of warranty, visit charges were asked from the complainant which he declined and demanded replacement of complete unit which was beyond warranty policy of the company. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the answering OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.         The Hitachi India Pvt. Limited did not file written reply, but chose to file application for striking out its name pleading that the product in question was not manufactured or serviced by it and being a separate legal entity it has no connection in respect of the nature of business of other company.

 

6.         In view of the endorsement made by the Counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, OP No.3 (Shree Sai Enterprises) was given up as reflected from order dated 07.07.2022.

 

7.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission disposed of the Consumer Complaint of the Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

8.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

9.         Pertinently, in the present proceedings nobody appeared on behalf of Respondent No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 05.09.2023.

 

10.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.

 

11.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

12.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

13.         It is the case of the Appellant/Complainant that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.

 

14.         Record transpires that the subject A.C. was purchased on 08.06.2018.  The Complainant claimed that he faced problem in the subject A.C. right from the very beginning and within the warranty period, he lodged Complaints in the months of June & July 2018, but the Ld. District Commission failed to consider the aforesaid material facts and erroneously recorded a finding that Complainant lodged a Complaint regarding no cooling in the A.C. with OP-Company only on 12.09.2019 i.e. after a period of more than one year. Needless to mention here that the Complainant has miserably failed to prove on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to show that he had ever lodged alleged Complaints with the Respondents during the currency of the warranty period rather, it has come on record that he lodged a Complaint regarding no cooling in the A.C. with the OP-Company only on 12.09.2019 vide Annexure C-2 i.e. beyond the period of one year.

 

15.         Admittedly, the A.C. carried one year warranty and 5 years warranty on its compressor and thus, after expiry of the warranty period, any repair of the A.C., except for any fault in its compressor are subject to payment of charges.  In these set of circumstances, while duly noticing the said aspect, the Ld. District Commission has rightly observed that there was no deficiency in service attributable towards the OPs. Notwithstanding this, the relief given by the Ld. District Commission in Para No.6 of the impugned order, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be suffered from illegality or perversity. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

 

16.         It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence. In this view of the matter, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

17.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

18.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

28^th May, 2024                                                                  

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”