BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.393 of 2016
Date of Instt. 14.09.2016
Date of Decision: 07.02.2018
Shyam Lal Gupta, Manager, Shri Zahriamal Charitable Veterinary Hospital Trust, Near Local Bus Stand, Jalandhar Cantt-144005.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Limited, Head Office: Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, District Mehsana- 382727, Gujrat, India.
2. M/s Standard Radios, #13, Hardiyal Road, Near Local Bus Stand, Jalandhar Cantt. (Pb.)
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Robin Ghosh, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. HS Sachdeva, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh. BB Shekhri, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is the Trustee/Manager of a registered Charitable Trust and Dharamshala running with the name of “Shri Zahriamal Charitable Veterinary Hospital Trust”, Near Local Bus Stand, Jalandhar Cantt. The OP No.1 is the manufacturer of air conditioners and OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of the OP No.1 at Jalandhar.
2. On 16.03.2016, the complainant visited the showroom of OP No.2 for the purchase of four split air conditioners. The representative of the OP No.2 stated that the OP No.2 deals with companies including Hitachi, which is the pioneer in air cooling systems and also provides the best services after sales. The representative also stated that the OP No.1 provides free installation, labour alongwith connecting pipes of 10 feet per unit. Further, he also stated that being the authorized sales agency of the OP No.1, the sales agency i.e. OP No.2 will leave no stone unturned to keep up to the policies of the company and shall provide best customer support to the customers. On seeing the good behaviour and promises of the representative of the OP No.2, the complainant agreed to purchase 4 units of Hitachi Logicool 1.5 Ton Split air conditioners. But then astonishingly the representative of the OP No.2 informed the complainant that due to the heavy demand of the particular model there was a shortage of one air conditioner and that he could provide only 3 air conditioners units on that day. The remaining one unit could only be provided on 22.03.2016. The representative of the OP No.2 also stated that the installation of the total units would be made together only, as the installation engineer comes from a long distance and comes for a short duration only. He also promised that he would definitely get the installation done of all the 4 units together on 22.03.2016. The representative even stated that as a goodwill gesture, the OP No.2 will accept the payment of the first 3 units in installments, so that complainant's faith with the sales agency i.e. OP No.2 grows stronger. That after so many assurances from the representative of the OP No.2, the complainant purchased 3 Hitachi Logicool 1.5 Ton Split air conditioners for a sum of Rs.36,000/- per unit. The total amount was Rs.1,08,000/-, which was made in installments on 16.03.2016, 17.03.2016, 18.03.2016, 19.03.2016, 20.03.2016 and 21.03.2016. The bill No.1124 dated 16.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- was issued by the OP No.2. Thereafter, on 22.03.2016 early in the morning, complainant received a call from the OP No.2 stating that the 4th Unit had arrived and that it was also the last AC unit available in the market. Hence, the complainant was asked to come immediately and make the necessary payment. The complainant visited the OP No.2 on 22.03.2016 and made the payment of Rs.36,000/- immediately and accordingly, the Bill No.1126 dated 22.03.2016 was issued. Copy of the second bill is also attached herewith. Thus, the total amount paid to the OP No.2 was Rs.1,44,000/- for 4 units. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the Bill No.1124 dated 16.03.2016 and Bill No.1126 dated 22.03.2016, he had specifically mentioned “including installation labour”.
3. That the ordeal of being harassed by the OP No.2 started just after the purchase of the last unit. The complainant made several verbal requests to the OP No.2 for installing the air conditioner units. Several visits were made to the OP No.2 for more than a month. However, all efforts went in vain. The OP No.2 did not send the installation engineer and just made lame excuses. The harassment reached its zenith on 10.05.2016 when the complainant again visited OP No.2, who flatly refused to provide engineer for installation of the said AC and accordingly, having no choice and in the hot summer and after being harassed for so long, the complainant hired the services of an outsider agency for getting the installation done. The trust had to bear additional expenses of Rs.22,000/- on 13.05.2016 for getting the installation done of all the 4 units. Copy of the bill dated 13.05.2016 on account of installation charges is attached herewith. After installation of the ACs, the complainant requested the OP No.2 to repay Rs.22,000/- on account of expenses incurred by the complainant for installation of the ACs, which was the responsibility of the OPs, but the OP flatly refused to accede to the genuine request made by the complainant, then complainant also sent a grievances email on 31.05.2016 to the OP No.1, but who deliberately did not reply the said email, then complainant issued a legal notice dated 11.07.2016, but no action was taken by the OP upon that notice and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the installation charges paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.22,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further be directed to pay compensation/damages, to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, to the complainant.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant in the present form is not maintainable, no cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint and even the OP No.1 has never failed to provide satisfactory services to the present complainant rather the present complainant has grossly misrepresented the facts even the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from the Forum for the reason best known to the complainant and hence, the complaint is not maintainable and further, averred that as per clause 1.0 of the agreement of warranty, the parties i.e. OP No.2 and the present complainant have agreed categorically that in the event of any dispute Courts of Ahmedabad shall have only jurisdiction and as such, when parties agreed for the jurisdiction of the Forum/Court, then this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Further, the purchase of four AC by the complainant from the OP No.2 is not denied, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. OP No.2 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as per the provisions of the 'Consumer Protection Act' and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands rather he has suppressed the material facts and further submitted that the complainant cannot take the advantage of his own act or conduct, as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. That even the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Further, it is admitted that the complainant purchased three split AC 1.5 ton Logicool Hitachi company on 16.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.36,000/-, each and total amounting to Rs.1,08,000/- and the said amount was paid by installment and further admitted that the complainant further purchased one Split AC 1.5 Ton Logicool Hitachi on 22.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.36,000/- and said payment was also made by two installments and further submitted that the complainant trust was a Charitable, so, OP No.2 out of his own free will, have waived the installation labour expenses. However, the material like pipe, wire etc. was to be provided by the complainant trust. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of four split AC is not denied and their prices are also admitted to be paid by way of installments, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-7 Original Cash Receipts and Bill No.1124, Ex.C-8 Bill No.1126, Ex.C-9 Bill dated 13.05.2016, Ex.C-10 E-mail, Ex.C-11 Legal Notice, Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13 Postal Receipts, Ex.C-14 Extract Resolution dated 04.09.2016 by Zahiramil Charitable Trust and then closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Saurabh Kumar as Ex.OW1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.
8. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.2
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
10. After considering the over all circumstances as discussed in the complaint as well as reply of both the OPs respectively, we find that the facts in regard to purchase of four split AC Units make Hitachi, by the complainant from the OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.36,000/- each, is not in dispute because the bills of the said Split AC has been brought on the file by the complainant Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 and similarly OP No.2 also brought on the file copy of same bill Ex.OP2/3 and Ex.OP2/4 and further complainant alleged that the payment of the three AC purchased on 16.03.2016 for amounting to Rs.1,08,000/- had been paid by way of installments and payment made by installments and its receipt are produced on the file Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and these factum have not been denied by OP No.2. Further, the complainant alleged that he purchased one an other Split AC on 22.03.2016, for an amount of Rs.36,000/-, but this amount is alleged by the OP has been also made by way of installments i.e. first installment has been made on 06.04.2016 an amount of Rs.20,000/- and second installment made on 07.04.2016 an amount of Rs.10,000/- and as per the version of the OP, the said amount of Rs.30,000/- of the bill No.1126 dated 22.03.2016 had been paid by the complainant, but Rs.6000/- is yet to be not paid by the complainant and due to that reason, the installation of the AC was not got made by the complainant himself rather just to avoid the said payment, he got installed the AC from outside agency.
11. First of all before imparting with the main issue, we are of the opinion that the plea taken by the OP No.1, in its written statement is very important to take firstly that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because as per warranty agreement, the jurisdiction in the event of any dispute, Courts of Ahmedabad shall only have the same, but in order to prove that there is any warranty agreement, the OP No.1 has not brought on the file copy of said agreement. So, in the absence of the said warranty agreement, we cannot construe whether there is any agreement between the parties in regard to ousting a jurisdiction of Jalandhar Court, so, accordingly, the plea taken by the OP No.1 is not established.
12. Now coming to the main issue as per version of the complainant, the OP No.2 miserably failed to install the Split AC since for the date of purchase i.e. 16.03.2016 despite oral request and even the complainant had also sent a grievance through email to the OP No.1, but we find that the installation of the Split AC is inter-se contract between the OP No.2 and the complainant and there is no role of the OP No.1, it is duty of the OP No.2 to get install the Split AC and it is categorically mentioned in both the bills that the amount charges as a price of the AC is including installation labour. So, it means the OP No.2 has to provide free of cost only labour of the installation not to provide any pipe or wire, if so then, it must be refer on the bill. It is alleged by the complainant that he got installed the AC at his own by engaging the services of outsider agency i.e. on 13.05.2016 by making a payment of Rs.22,000/-, vide bill Ex.C-9, no doubt, the fourth AC was purchased by the complainant on 22.03.2016 and its bill bearing No.1126 dated 22.03.2016 is Ex.C-8, whereon the amount of Rs.36,000/- has been mentioned and similarly, the price of the three Split AC is mentioned in the Bill No.1124/- dated 16.03.2016 i.e. Rs.1,08,000/-, but the said amount of Rs.1,08,000/- had been paid by the complainant by way of installments through receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C6, as both the bills Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 issued in similar like manner and as such, the much weightage goes in favour of the plea taken by the OP that a still Rs.6000/- is pending towards the complainant, which he has not paid, the said version of the OP No.2 is virtually supported by documentary evidence that the OP No.2 also brought on the file receipts Ex.OP2/1 and Ex.OP2/2, whereby two installments of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- of the bill No.1126 dated 22.03.2016 has been made. So, it means it is established that the remaining amount of the said bill dated 22.03.2016 i.e. Rs.6000/- has yet not paid by the complainant, but the complainant intentionally and deliberately does not mention in the complaint that the payment of fourth Split AC has been also made by way of installment, whereas these facts have been elaborated and proved by the OP by bringing on the file two receipts, which are of the similar pattern as produced by the complainant Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 in regard to payment of first bill dated 16.03.2016. So, under these situations, we cannot say that the said receipts are self made and later on fabricated rather these receipts are also genuine. So, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant himself at fault for not making a payment of remaining amount of Rs.6000/- and due to that reason, he never approached to the OP No.2 rather got installed the AC at own level by making a payment through bill Ex.C9 dated 13.05.2016. So, with these observations, it is clearly established that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
07.02.2018 Member President
