Haryana

Kaithal

290/19

Raghubir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhagwati Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.V Ravish

27 Jan 2021

ORDER

DCDRF
KAITHAL
 
Complaint Case No. 290/19
( Date of Filing : 06 Sep 2019 )
 
1. Raghubir Singh
Kaithal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Bhagwati Electronics
Kurushetra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 27 Jan 2021
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.290 of 2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 06.09.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:27.01.2021.

Raghubir Singh S/o Sh. Gita Ram, r/o Rajinder Seth Colony, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

  1. M/s. Bhagwati Electronics Shiv Mandir Market, Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra (M-94161-81968).
  2. M/s. Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India (Ltd.) Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, Distt. Mehsana, Gujarat-277571.

….Respondents.

Before:      Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

                Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. S.V.Ravish, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

                Op No.1 exparte.

               

ORDER

D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with the averments that the complainant purchased a Hitachi 1.5 ton 3 Star inverter Air Conditioner through Op No.1 vide invoice No.0000829 dt. 03.08.2018 with 1+4 year warranty alongwith 4 KVA STP 3 year warranty for a sum of Rs.36,500/- and Rs.3,000- respectively i.e. total amounting to Rs.39,500/-.  It is alleged that the said A.C. is not functioning and running properly from the very beginning and seems to be manufacturing defect in the said item as exists unnecessary leakage of water, not giving required cooling, swing system not functioning properly, mode is defective, giving heavy and unbearable noise also seems to be installed in defective way by mechanic of Ops as the wall on which said A.C. was installed has been damaged, whereas the complainant had already left the space for installation of split AC with proper fitting.  The complainant requested the Ops several times to remove the defects or to replace the said defective A.C. with the new one but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Commission, whereas the Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.11.2019 of this commission.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant purchased a Hitachi Air Conditioner with 1.5 ton from the Op No.1 on 03.08.2018 for a consideration of Rs.39,500/-; that the disputed product carries no proof of purchase; that while inspecting the said product, the technician found that the said product was having some temperament in terms with its stickers and some positioning in the product; that the seller i.e. Op no.1 is not their authorized dealer; that the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the product in question and deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint.  It is further submitted that the Op no.1 is not an agent of Op No.2, but merely an unauthorized reseller of products manufactured by Op No.2, hence the Op No.2 could not be held responsible for acts (if any) of Op No.1.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.           On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Undisputedly, the complainant purchased a Hitachi 1.5 ton 3 Star inverter Air Conditioner through Op No.1 vide invoice No.0000829 dt. 03.08.2018 with 1+4 year warranty alongwith 4 KVA STP 3 year warranty for a sum of Rs.36,500/- and Rs.3,000- respectively i.e. total amounting to Rs.39,500/-.  According to the complainant, the said A.C. is not functioning and running properly from the very beginning and seems to be manufacturing defect in the said item as exists unnecessary leakage of water, not giving required cooling, swing system not functioning properly, mode is defective, giving heavy and unbearable noise also seems to be installed in defective way by mechanic of Ops as the wall on which said A.C. was installed has been damaged, whereas the complainant had already left the space for installation of split AC with proper fitting. 

7.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The Op No.2 has taken the first objection that the Op No.1 who has sold the A.C. in question, he is not their authorized dealer but they have not denied that the product is not manufactured by them.  So, the said contention of Op No.2 has no force.  Now the other point raised by the Op No.2 after receiving the notice Annexure-C3 dt. 30.07.2019, the engineer of Op No.2 visited the house of complainant on 28.09.2019 and he found that the said A.C. was having the problems i.e. water leakage due to wrong installation but the Op No.2 has not taken the stand that the installation of the A.C. has not been done by their engineer.  However, the complainant alleged that the A.C. in question was having defect of leakage of water, cooling, swing system not working properly and giving the heavy and unbearable noise.  To prove the above-said defects in the A.C., the complainant is duty bound to place on file any opinion of the mechanic or he had to move the application in this commission for taking the expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect in the A.C.  But the complainant neither moved the application for expert opinion nor place on file any expert report of mechanic.  From the perusal of Annexure-R2, it is clear that there is water leakage problem due to wrong installation.  So, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is fit case for giving the direction to the Ops to install the A.C. in question in proper manner and to make the A.C. in working condition.    

8.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly accordingly and direct the OPs to install the A.C. in question in proper manner and to make the A.C. in working condition free of cost.  It is further directed that the service engineer, who will repair the A.C. in question of the complainant shall submit a repair certificate to this commission about repairing the A.C. in question after obtaining the satisfaction note from the complainant.  No order as to costs.  Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 45 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:27.01.2021.  

                                                                        (D.N.Arora)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Suman Rana),           (Rajbir Singh)         

Member                             Member.

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.