BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.160/14.
Date of instt.: 27.08.2014.
Date of Decision: 01.06.2015.
Pardeep Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar age about 40 years, r/o Village Guhna, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Modern T.V. Centre, through its proprietor/partner of Showroom No.3, Koel Complex, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
2. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Limited through its Managing Director off: 9th floor, Abhijeet, Mithakhali, Six Roads, Ahmedabad (Gujrat)-380006.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. S.K.Goel, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Virender Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Lovneet Bindlish, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased Split Air Conditioner Marka Hitachi 1.5 TR Split 3 Star RAC 318 HUDD-140D54436 (outdoor) RAS31 HUDD-SE 140E03059 (indoor), manufactured by Op No.2 from the show-room of Op No.1 on 20.06.2014 against the cash price of Rs.36,000/- against the guarantee of five years. It is alleged that the above-said A.C. was fitted in the house of complainant by the employee of the Op No.1, as and when the above-said A.C. was started, it begins water dropping from the indoor unit and no proper cooling and functioning was going on. It is further alleged that the complainant told the Op No.1 regarding the continuous water dropping problem and not proper cooling and functioning. It is further alleged that the employee of Op No.1 changed some parts but the problem was not sorted out and the Op No.1 asked the complainant to complaint to the Op No.2 and the complainant on 28.07.2014 made registered complaint No.14072800191 with the Op No.2. It is further alleged that on 04.08.2014 a mechanic of company came to the house of complainant but nothing was done to the problem of the complainant and the mechanic told the complainant that these faults/problems cannot be cured. It is further alleged that the Ops have sold the manufacturing defective, inferior and duplicate quality of A.C. to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the Op No.1 replaced the AC with new one in the month of August, 2014 and delivered the new AC Hitachi 1.5 P.R. Split bearing No.RAS 318 HUDD-SE 140E0 3011 Model No.RAS318HUDD and now the old A.C. is in the custody of Op No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the Op No.2 has never failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant and has always taken due and necessary care while providing services to the present complainant; that the Op No.2 is an Indian Subsidiary of World Renowned Japanese Home Appliances Giant ‘Hitachi’ through its 100% subsidiary ‘Hitachi Home & Life Solutions Inc., Japan which has gathered a lot of Good Will in India and holds almost the highest reputation in the manufacturing of A.Cs. in the market of India and whose motto is to provide the best services to their customers; that the complainant bought an air conditioner from one M/s. Modern T.V. Centre i.e. Op No.1 directly and also signed an Agreement of Warranty on the machine, which is a matter of record. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant submitted affidavit and documents.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. We have perused the complaint & replies thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased Split Air Conditioner Marka Hitachi 1.5 TR Split 3 Star RAC 318 HUDD-140D54436 (outdoor) RAS31 HUDD-SE 140E03059 (indoor), manufactured by Op No.2 from the Op No.1 on 20.06.2014 for sum of Rs.36,000/- against the guarantee of five years. The above-said A.C. begins water dropping from the indoor unit and no proper cooling and functioning was going on. The complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the continuous water dropping problem and not proper cooling and functioning and the employee of Op No.1 changed some parts but the problem was not sorted out. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant again complained to the Op No.2 on 28.07.2014 vide registered complaint No.14072800191 with the Op No.2. On 04.08.2014 a mechanic of company came to the house of complainant but nothing was done to the problem of the complainant and the mechanic told the complainant that these faults/problems cannot be cured. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), copy of bill (Ex.C1) and copy of receipts (Ex.C2 &C3). Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 contends that the Op No.1 replaced the AC with new one in the month of August, 2014 and delivered the new AC Hitachi 1.5 TR Split bearing No.RAS 318 HUDD-SE140E07011 Model No.RAS-318 HUDD and the old AC of the complainant is in the possession and custody of Op No.1. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 has also placed on file the photo of old AC. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the A.C. was not working properly, water dropping problem was going on and there was no cooling at all and the Op No.1 never replaced the A.C. with new one. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on file the two photos of defective A.C. After careful consideration of all the record on file, we are of the considered view that the AC was having manufacturing defect and Op No.2 is held deficient for the same.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op No.2 to replace the defective A.C. with new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.16409 dt. 20.06.2014. However, it is made clear that if the said A.C. as purchased by the complainant is not available with the Op No.2, then the Op No.2 shall refund Rs.36,000/- as the cost of A.C. to the complainant. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.36,000/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.06.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.160/14.
Date of instt.: 27.08.2014.
Date of Decision: 01.06.2015.
Pardeep Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar age about 40 years, r/o Village Guhna, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Modern T.V. Centre, through its proprietor/partner of Showroom No.3, Koel Complex, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
2. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Limited through its Managing Director off: 9th floor, Abhijeet, Mithakhali, Six Roads, Ahmedabad (Gujrat)-380006.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. S.K.Goel, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Virender Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Lovneet Bindlish, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased Split Air Conditioner Marka Hitachi 1.5 TR Split 3 Star RAC 318 HUDD-140D54436 (outdoor) RAS31 HUDD-SE 140E03059 (indoor), manufactured by Op No.2 from the show-room of Op No.1 on 20.06.2014 against the cash price of Rs.36,000/- against the guarantee of five years. It is alleged that the above-said A.C. was fitted in the house of complainant by the employee of the Op No.1, as and when the above-said A.C. was started, it begins water dropping from the indoor unit and no proper cooling and functioning was going on. It is further alleged that the complainant told the Op No.1 regarding the continuous water dropping problem and not proper cooling and functioning. It is further alleged that the employee of Op No.1 changed some parts but the problem was not sorted out and the Op No.1 asked the complainant to complaint to the Op No.2 and the complainant on 28.07.2014 made registered complaint No.14072800191 with the Op No.2. It is further alleged that on 04.08.2014 a mechanic of company came to the house of complainant but nothing was done to the problem of the complainant and the mechanic told the complainant that these faults/problems cannot be cured. It is further alleged that the Ops have sold the manufacturing defective, inferior and duplicate quality of A.C. to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the Op No.1 replaced the AC with new one in the month of August, 2014 and delivered the new AC Hitachi 1.5 P.R. Split bearing No.RAS 318 HUDD-SE 140E0 3011 Model No.RAS318HUDD and now the old A.C. is in the custody of Op No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the Op No.2 has never failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant and has always taken due and necessary care while providing services to the present complainant; that the Op No.2 is an Indian Subsidiary of World Renowned Japanese Home Appliances Giant ‘Hitachi’ through its 100% subsidiary ‘Hitachi Home & Life Solutions Inc., Japan which has gathered a lot of Good Will in India and holds almost the highest reputation in the manufacturing of A.Cs. in the market of India and whose motto is to provide the best services to their customers; that the complainant bought an air conditioner from one M/s. Modern T.V. Centre i.e. Op No.1 directly and also signed an Agreement of Warranty on the machine, which is a matter of record. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant submitted affidavit and documents.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. We have perused the complaint & replies thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased Split Air Conditioner Marka Hitachi 1.5 TR Split 3 Star RAC 318 HUDD-140D54436 (outdoor) RAS31 HUDD-SE 140E03059 (indoor), manufactured by Op No.2 from the Op No.1 on 20.06.2014 for sum of Rs.36,000/- against the guarantee of five years. The above-said A.C. begins water dropping from the indoor unit and no proper cooling and functioning was going on. The complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the continuous water dropping problem and not proper cooling and functioning and the employee of Op No.1 changed some parts but the problem was not sorted out. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant again complained to the Op No.2 on 28.07.2014 vide registered complaint No.14072800191 with the Op No.2. On 04.08.2014 a mechanic of company came to the house of complainant but nothing was done to the problem of the complainant and the mechanic told the complainant that these faults/problems cannot be cured. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), copy of bill (Ex.C1) and copy of receipts (Ex.C2 &C3). Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 contends that the Op No.1 replaced the AC with new one in the month of August, 2014 and delivered the new AC Hitachi 1.5 TR Split bearing No.RAS 318 HUDD-SE140E07011 Model No.RAS-318 HUDD and the old AC of the complainant is in the possession and custody of Op No.1. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 has also placed on file the photo of old AC. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the A.C. was not working properly, water dropping problem was going on and there was no cooling at all and the Op No.1 never replaced the A.C. with new one. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on file the two photos of defective A.C. After careful consideration of all the record on file, we are of the considered view that the AC was having manufacturing defect and Op No.2 is held deficient for the same.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op No.2 to replace the defective A.C. with new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.16409 dt. 20.06.2014. However, it is made clear that if the said A.C. as purchased by the complainant is not available with the Op No.2, then the Op No.2 shall refund Rs.36,000/- as the cost of A.C. to the complainant. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.36,000/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.06.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.160/14.
Date of instt.: 27.08.2014.
Date of Decision: 01.06.2015.
Pardeep Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar age about 40 years, r/o Village Guhna, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Modern T.V. Centre, through its proprietor/partner of Showroom No.3, Koel Complex, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).
2. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Limited through its Managing Director off: 9th floor, Abhijeet, Mithakhali, Six Roads, Ahmedabad (Gujrat)-380006.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. S.K.Goel, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Virender Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Lovneet Bindlish, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased Split Air Conditioner Marka Hitachi 1.5 TR Split 3 Star RAC 318 HUDD-140D54436 (outdoor) RAS31 HUDD-SE 140E03059 (indoor), manufactured by Op No.2 from the show-room of Op No.1 on 20.06.2014 against the cash price of Rs.36,000/- against the guarantee of five years. It is alleged that the above-said A.C. was fitted in the house of complainant by the employee of the Op No.1, as and when the above-said A.C. was started, it begins water dropping from the indoor unit and no proper cooling and functioning was going on. It is further alleged that the complainant told the Op No.1 regarding the continuous water dropping problem and not proper cooling and functioning. It is further alleged that the employee of Op No.1 changed some parts but the problem was not sorted out and the Op No.1 asked the complainant to complaint to the Op No.2 and the complainant on 28.07.2014 made registered complaint No.14072800191 with the Op No.2. It is further alleged that on 04.08.2014 a mechanic of company came to the house of complainant but nothing was done to the problem of the complainant and the mechanic told the complainant that these faults/problems cannot be cured. It is further alleged that the Ops have sold the manufacturing defective, inferior and duplicate quality of A.C. to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the Op No.1 replaced the AC with new one in the month of August, 2014 and delivered the new AC Hitachi 1.5 P.R. Split bearing No.RAS 318 HUDD-SE 140E0 3011 Model No.RAS318HUDD and now the old A.C. is in the custody of Op No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the Op No.2 has never failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant and has always taken due and necessary care while providing services to the present complainant; that the Op No.2 is an Indian Subsidiary of World Renowned Japanese Home Appliances Giant ‘Hitachi’ through its 100% subsidiary ‘Hitachi Home & Life Solutions Inc., Japan which has gathered a lot of Good Will in India and holds almost the highest reputation in the manufacturing of A.Cs. in the market of India and whose motto is to provide the best services to their customers; that the complainant bought an air conditioner from one M/s. Modern T.V. Centre i.e. Op No.1 directly and also signed an Agreement of Warranty on the machine, which is a matter of record. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant submitted affidavit and documents.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. We have perused the complaint & replies thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased Split Air Conditioner Marka Hitachi 1.5 TR Split 3 Star RAC 318 HUDD-140D54436 (outdoor) RAS31 HUDD-SE 140E03059 (indoor), manufactured by Op No.2 from the Op No.1 on 20.06.2014 for sum of Rs.36,000/- against the guarantee of five years. The above-said A.C. begins water dropping from the indoor unit and no proper cooling and functioning was going on. The complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the continuous water dropping problem and not proper cooling and functioning and the employee of Op No.1 changed some parts but the problem was not sorted out. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant again complained to the Op No.2 on 28.07.2014 vide registered complaint No.14072800191 with the Op No.2. On 04.08.2014 a mechanic of company came to the house of complainant but nothing was done to the problem of the complainant and the mechanic told the complainant that these faults/problems cannot be cured. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), copy of bill (Ex.C1) and copy of receipts (Ex.C2 &C3). Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 contends that the Op No.1 replaced the AC with new one in the month of August, 2014 and delivered the new AC Hitachi 1.5 TR Split bearing No.RAS 318 HUDD-SE140E07011 Model No.RAS-318 HUDD and the old AC of the complainant is in the possession and custody of Op No.1. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 has also placed on file the photo of old AC. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the A.C. was not working properly, water dropping problem was going on and there was no cooling at all and the Op No.1 never replaced the A.C. with new one. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on file the two photos of defective A.C. After careful consideration of all the record on file, we are of the considered view that the AC was having manufacturing defect and Op No.2 is held deficient for the same.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op No.2 to replace the defective A.C. with new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.16409 dt. 20.06.2014. However, it is made clear that if the said A.C. as purchased by the complainant is not available with the Op No.2, then the Op No.2 shall refund Rs.36,000/- as the cost of A.C. to the complainant. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.36,000/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.06.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
