The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that for the purpose of cooling its shop, the complainant purchased one Air-conditioner Machine, Hitachi Make, Serial No. Inside- SE180C56793, Outside – 180C59766, Model No. RIDAA 3100F (RMC322HD), on 15.06.2018 from opposite party no.3. According to the complainant, since installation of the Air-conditioner Machine, it has been constantly giving problems in its functioning. The Air-conditioner Machine is defective in respect of water out-flow as well as having low cooling problems. There is constant water leakage from the machine. The complainant filed complaints with the opposite parties but they are reluctant to address the issue of the complainant. According to the complainant, the opposite parties neither try to repair the Air-conditioner Machine nor did they send any technician for its repair. The opposite parties have sold the defective Air-conditioner Machine which was broken at the very beginning and never provided any service to rectify the defect which amounts to deficiency in service. It is also alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties sold a defective goods as such they are involved in unfair trade practice.
Hence, this case.
After service of notice the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.3 appeared and filed written versions separately.
The opposite party no.1 stated that they have service centre having excellent set up for after sale servicing of its products, which are manned by qualified and experienced person only. That a part, the opposite party no.1 has a dedicated all India toll free help line (24 x 7 Hrs.) to serve the customers for service/repairs as needed. It is alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts. It is categorically stated that the sold Air-conditioner Machine carries warrantee for the period of one year and for the Compressor for a period of five years. That as per the warrantee policy if there will be any issue/problem with the product, then the company shall repair the same free of cost within the warrantee period.
However, in the case of damage of the product or if any of the terms and conditions of the warrantee policy is violated or warrantee period is expired, then the warrantee policy shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis, to be paid by the customer. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any manufacturing defect in the Air-conditioner Machine. It is further stated that the complainant made complaint on 24/09/2018, 14/03/2019 and 28/04/2019 and the technicians of the opposite party no.1 duly rendered adequate services to the satisfaction of the complainant but the complainant did not acknowledge the work done by opposite party no.1. The complainant out of pure greed and nefarious intentions filed the instant case without any basis. As such, the complaint is liable to be rejected.
Opposite party no.3 in its written version stated that the complainant in the month of June, 2018 purchased a 2 Ton Air-conditioner Machine. The complainant himself by his own man and technician installed the Air-conditioner Machine. As such the opposite party no.3 is not aware as to whether there is any inherent defect at the time of installation of the Air-conditioner Machine as alleged. The complainant after few days of installation of Air-conditioner Machine, told the opposite party no.3 that there was same problem in the Air-conditioner Machine and the complainant was advised to lodge the complaint before the service centre of Hitachi. According to opposite party no.3, the complainant deliberately did not allow the opposite party no.3 to put a seal on the warrantee card of the Air-conditioner Machine. It is further stated by opposite party no.3 that he is a retailer and running a shop selling several kind of electronic products and opposite party no.3 is not responsible for any allegation made in the complaint. The opposite party no.3 being a retailer is not liable to refund the money and also to provide any service of repairing the said Air-conditioner Machine. If any Air-conditioner Machine is found defective from the very beginning of its purchase and installation, there is every option to replace the same by the company directly but in this case the complainant took more than a year to lodge a complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.3.
Hence, the case is liable to be rejected.
In view of rival pleadings of both sides the following issues are framed.
I S S U E S
- Is the complainant a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act?
- Is the case is barred by limitation?
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file the case?
- Are the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service?
- To what relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
DECISION WITH REASONS
The complainant Sri Amit Dey, the proprietor of Amit Electronics/complainant submitted evidence on affidavit and the documents filed by him mark document-1-invoice dated 15.06.2018; document-2 (series) -: photo copies of WhatsApp communication between the complainant and Hitachi Global; document-3 (series) -: photo copy of email transactions and document-4 -: photo copy of legal notice dated 17.17.2019.
On scrutiny of the record we find though opposite party nos.1 and 2 filed written version in the case but not submitted evidence on affidavit.
Opposite party no.3 filed written version and submitted affidavit in chief and reply on affidavit to the questionnaire of the complainant.
Point nos.1 and 2
For the sake of brevity and convenience both the points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the complainant is a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and case is not barred by limitation.
Therefore, both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Point nos.3, 4, 5 and 6
For the sake of brevity and convenience all the above mentioned points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one two Ton Air-conditioner Machine, Hitachi Make, Serial No. Inside- SE180C56793, Outside – 180C59766, Model No. RIDAA 3100F (RMC322HD), on 15.06.2018 from opposite party no.3.
The proprietor of the complainant state that since installation of the said Air-conditioner Machine started given trouble of outflow of water resulting constant low cooling problems. There is constant water leakage from the machine. The complainant lodged several complains through WhatsApp and email (ext.2 series and ext.3 series). The opposite parties did not send any technicians to check the repair and the defective Air-conditioner Machine. According to the complainant the opposite parties sold the defective and broken Air-conditioner Machine to him. In spite of several complaint lodged by him they did not send any technicians to rectify the same. As such the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service.
During cross examination the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 raised a question as follows:- ‘Q – I put to you that whether the Air-conditioner Machine having water out flow problem and was suffering from constant low cooling problems’?
The complainant in reply to the above question answered in affirmative. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 did not prefer to deny the answer of the complainant in this regard.
Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 put further question as follows:-
‘Q – Did you received complaint registration i.d. upon registering the complaint’?
The complainant answered ‘yes, several times’.
Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 put a question as follows:-
‘Q – Is it right to suggest that a technician visited your premises upon receiving your complaint, answer in yes/no’?
The complainant answered ‘No’.
Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 further put a question as follows:-
‘Q – I put it to you, did the service executive expressed that the Air-conditioner Machine was faulty or had any manufacturing defect’?
The complainant answered in negative.
None of the answers of the complainant was refuted by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2.
Opposite party no. 3 put questions as follows:-
- After purchasing the Air-conditioner Machine how was the Air-conditioner Machine installed at the premises of the complainant?
- Who installed the Air-conditioner Machine at the premises of the complainant?
For both the questions the complainant answered ‘the Air-conditioner Machine was installed by the authorized technicians.
This answer of the complainant was not denied by opposite party no. 3.
Opposite party no.3 submitted evidence on affidavit. Complainant filed questionnaire to cross examine opposite party no.3.
The complainant put the following question to opposite party no.3 :-
- Q : I put it to you that the Air-conditioner Machine was defective from the very first day of delivery, giving trouble in respect of water outflow problems and constant low cooling problems?
The opposite party no.3 in reply stated that with regard to defect in the machine he can neither confirm nor deny the same since he had no occasion to inspect the Air-conditioner Machine in question either prior to or after installation of the same.
Having considered the above answers of both complainant and opposite party no. 3 and also from document-2 series and document-3 series, it is evident that the Air-conditioner Machine was purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.3 and since its installation it started giving trouble with regard to outflow of water and cooling system. The opposite party no.3 himself stated that being retailer opposite party no.3 only sold the product and not liable for any after sale service. So, no question can arise that opposite party no.3 is liable to provide authorized technicians for installation or repair of Air-conditioner Machine.
In this case opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are liable for after sale service of the product sold if required by any customer.
On scrutiny of the record, we find that opposite party no.1 in written version stated that the said Air-conditioner Machine carries warrantee for period of one year and its compressor for a period of five years.
Having considered the material on record we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that an Air-conditioner Machine was found defective since the very date of its installation after its purchase on 15.06.2018 which was within the warrantee period.
The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have not submitted any evidence on affidavit to prove that they have provided any after sale service either within the warrantee period or beyond the warrantee period addressing to the complain of the complainant in respect of defective Air-conditioner Machine which is certainly deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove its case satisfactorily.
Therefore, point nos. 3, 4 and 5 are answered in favour of the complainant.
As a result the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against opposite party no.3 and ex-parte against opposite party nos.1 and 2 with cost.
The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date hereof failing which to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum till the date of actual payment.
The complainant is directed to return the defective Air-conditioner Machine [two Ton Air-conditioner Machine Hitachi Make, Serial No. Inside- SE180C56793, Outside – 180C59766, Model No. RIDAA 3100F (RMC322HD)] to opposite party nos. 1 and 2 on receiving of the amount of Rs.44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand) only from them.
The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are jointly or severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only for harassment and deficiency in service within 30 days from the date hereof, failing which to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum till the actual date of payment.
The opposite parties no. 1 & 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for litigation cost within 30 days from the date hereof failing which to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum till the actual date of payment.
