Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/643

Rajeev Thaman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s August Marketing and Services Co. - Opp.Party(s)

B.L.Saini

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.                                   

                                                          C.C. No.643 of 16.09.2014

                                                          Date of Decision:27/04/2015

Rajeev Thaman son of Rajesh Thaman, resident of House No.103/14, Near Civil Hospital, Ahmadgarh, District Sangrur.

                                                                                      Complainant

                             Versus          

1.M/s August Marketing and Services Co.1472, Gobind Nagar, Yes Bank Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Partner/Proprietor.

2.M/s Hitachi Service Centre, Dugri Road, Near Libra Bus Service, Model Town Extension-D, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Authorized Agent.

                                                                                                Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.Bhajan Lal, Adv, for complainant.

                   OPs ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Rajeev Thaman(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s August Marketing and Services Co.1472, Gobind Nagar, Yes Bank Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Partner/Proprietor and another (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘OPs’) directing them to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh as compensation on account of the price of the faulty air conditioner and mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant alongwith pendentelite and future interest @18% p.a. besides other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant purchased a Hitachi Inverter Air conditioner, Model RAU019EUEA vide Bill No.6609 dated 9.5.2014 for a total amount of RS.50,400/- in cash from the OP1. The complainant got the air conditioner installed, but its remote control was missing right from the installation regarding which, the OP1 was apprised of the matter immediately, but OP1 expressed his inability to supply the same and further, it was told that there is a local dealer of Hitachi and gave the address of Local Service Centre of the Hitachi Air Condition, the OP2. On 23.5.2014, the complainant approached the OP2 and reported about the missing remote control and defects regarding the spilling of water drops from the blower of the air conditioner vide request No.14052300940 and it was assured by the OP2 that the request will be processed shortly and the defects will be cleared soon. On 25.4.2014, the employee of the OP2 came to the repair the air conditioner and applied M.Seal to stop the water leakage from the blower for a temporary period and assured the complainant to rectify the defect permanently in a day or two and got his signatures on the job card. After a passage of less than a month, the defect increased which resulted into improper working of air conditioner which was informed to the Ops many times, but no action was taken by them to get defects removed. Finally on 12.7.2014, the air conditioner supplied by the OP1 stopped working completely and then this fact was also reported to the OP1 and to the OP2 but with no result which amounted into deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, as the Ops failed to provide proper services by not providing remote control and stopping spillage of water and have cheated the complainant, which is an unfair trade practice and have supplied to the complainant a faulty air conditioner with inherent manufacturing defect. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Op2 was duly served and Sh.Amit, CR put his appearance, whereas,  despite service through notice, OP1 failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.10.2014 by this Forum. 

4.                Written statement on behalf of OP2 was received by post on 5.12.2014, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and no cause of action and actionable claim arise in favour of the complainant so as to attempt the complainant to file the present complaint and claim to file the present complaint against the answering OP. The answering OP has never failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant and has always taken due and necessary care while providing service to the present complainant. Answering OP 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 air conditioners in the market of India. The present complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived bad in law and not maintainable as the complainant has not come forwarded with clean hand and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant has brought an air conditioner from one M/s August Marketing i.e. Op1 directly and also signed an agreement of warranty on the machine, which is an admitted fact by the complainant in the present complaint. The Agreement of Warranty is a concluded Contract between the complainant and the answering OP as laid down in the Indian Contract Act. As per clause 1.0 of the abovesaid warranty agreement, the parties i.e. answering OP and the present complainant have agreed categorically that in the event of any dispute Courts of Ahmedabad shall only have jurisdiction, which is the terms and conditions of the warranty agreement. OP1 is an authorized dealer for sales of answering Ops for its products. Further, it is submitted that the OP1 is the show room dealer of answering OP and therefore, maintains stock of products of answering OP. It is possible that answering OP must have appointed OP1 as its sub-dealer. During the course of business, it happens that sometimes orders are placed by the end customer/consumer/purchaser for supply and installation/commissioning of the product through sub-dealers. Therefore, in this case, the company i.e. answering OP may be unaware of any such initial transaction or dealing with regard to installment that might have taken place between the dealers and the customer/consumer/purchaser. Reply on facts, the fact regarding purchase of the air conditioner in question from OP1 is not denied. Rather, it is submitted that the answering OP is not aware of query of any remote missing and further his inability to supply the remote. At the end, made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                In order to prove the case of complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.

6.                When the case was fixed for evidence of OP2, none was appeared on behalf of OP2 and as such, OP2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the documents on record very carefully.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the Hitachi Inverter Air Conditioner in question from OP1 vide Bill No.6609 dated 9.5.2014 for a total amount of Rs.50,400/- which is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. It is proved fact on record that when the complainant had got the air conditioner installed, he found that the remote control of the air conditioner was missing, to which, he had approached the OP1, who had expressed his inability to supply the same and advised the complainant to approach OP2. As per the allegations of the complainant that he had informed the OP2 on 23.5.2014 about the missing remote and defects regarding the spilling of water drops from the blower of the air conditioner vide request No.14052300940 and OP2 had assured that the request will be processed shortly and the defects will be cleared soon which fact is evident from document Ex.C2. Further, as per the allegations of the complainant that on 25.4.2014, the employee of the OP2 had come to repair the air conditioner and had applied M.Seal to stop the water leakage from the blower for a temporary period and he had assured the complainant to rectify the defect permanently in a day or two and got his signatures on the job card. However, after a month ago, the defect has increased which resulted into improper working which resulted into stopped working completely on 12.7.2014. As per the allegations of the complainant that OP1 failed to remove the defects and to provide the remote control of the air conditioner despite his repeated requests and various visits and despite serving a legal notice dated 5.8.2014 Ex.C4.

9.                Though, written reply on behalf of OP1 was received by post, vide which, OP1 has not denied the sale of the air conditioner in question by OP1 and further, it is admitted to the extent that Op1 is the show room dealer of the OP2. However, OP2 failed to rebut the allegations of the complainant qua the defects of the air conditioner in question and missing remote of the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence on record. Since, it is proved fact on record that air conditioner stopped working due to some defects and the Ops failed to repair the same despite repeated requests of the complainant and also to supply the remote control of the air conditioner to the complainant, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  

10.              Sequel to the above discussion, by allowing the complaint of the complainant, we hereby direct the OPs to carry out the necessary repair in the air conditioner of the complainant  by repairing/replacing the defective parts of the same and make the same proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant without charging any costs and further, Ops are directed to supply the remote control of the air conditioner to the complainant free of costs. Further, Ops are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/-(five thousand only) on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Babita)                          (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L. Ahuja)

 Member                                    Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum

on 27.04.2015

GurpreetSharma