Judgment : 17-04-2017
Mr. Balaka Chatterjee (Member)
This petition of complaint is filed by Sri Mrinal Das, against (1) M/s Hitachi Home and Life Solution (India) Ltd., Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, District- Mehsana-382727, Gujarat, having their service centre at 33, Kabir Road, P.S.- Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 026 and (2) M/s Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., 19/2, Gariahat Road (South), P.S.-Lake, Kolkata-700 031.
The case of the Complainant, in a nutshell, is that the Complainant purchased two Air Conditioners manufactured by the OP No1. The Complainant purchased the said A.C.s from the dealer of the OP No.1 i.e. the OP No.2. The Complainant has stated that out of those A.C.s one is an Inverter Split type having capacity of 1.2 Ton, Model No.0141 VEA, Machine No.SE 150000310/150C 71610 and the same has been sold vide Tax Invoice No.DK/SA/1516/09203 dt.31.01.2016.
The Complainant has stated that the said A.C. was installed by authorized person of the OP No.1 on 4.2.2016 but since then the said A.C. has been malfunctioning in respect of cooling and inside swing for which the Complainant made complaint with the Local Service Centre of the OP No.1 vide Registration No.16021501504 dt.15.2.2016 and receiving that complaint a technician from the said service centre attended the said A/C on 16.02.2016 who found that the problem occurred due to insufficient cooling gas and, accordingly, refilled the same in the A.C.
The Complainant has further stated that, subsequently, on 27.2.2016, 4.4.2016, 6.4.2016 and 7.4.2016 complaints were lodged with the OP No.1 in response to which the OP No.1 sent technicians who again refilled the cooling gas finding that there was leakage in cooling gas container but did not repair the same.
The Complainant, as he stated, found the said A.C. went out of order and lodged complaint with the OP No.1 through help line, vide docket Nos.16062701272 and 16062701278 on 27.06.2016 and vide docket No.16071301232 and 16071301245 on 3.7.2016 but, in spite of those, no technician was sent by the OP No.1.
The Complainant stated that again he lodged complaint over help line of the OP No.1 vide docket No.126072503860 and a technician attended the said A.
C. and refilled cooling gas on 30.07.2016 but from 4.8.2016 the said A.C. again started malfunctioning in respect of cooling for which the Complainant again lodged complaint with the OP No.1 vide docket No.16030402888. A technician attended the said A/C but could not find out the defect.
The Complainant finding himself under compelling circumstances, served a Demand Notice through his Ld. Advocate on 26.08.2016 asking the OPs to replace the said A.C. by new one, which was received by OP No.2 on 27.08.2016 and by OP No.1 on 31.08.2016. Subsequently, the Complainant again served another notice through his Ld. Advocate on 15.11.2016, asking the OPs to replace the said A.C. by new one within 15 days from the date of service of the said notice. The said notice was received by the OP No.2 on 17.11.2016 and by the OP No.1 on 17.11.2016 at their Kolkata Service Centre and on 21.11.2016 at their Gujarat office but neither of the OPs did anything to remove defects from the said A.C.
The Complainant specifically stated that as the said A.C. containing inherent manufacturing defects, so the same could not be repaired and thus the same should be replaced by new one since the Complainant paid entire amount of consideration for the said A.C. but did not get benefit of the said machine since installation of the same.
Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OPs to replace the A.C. in question by new one of same description, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.
Notices were served upon the OPs but they did not turn up. Therefore, vide order No.5 dated 27.2.2017 the case was proceeded ex-parte against the OPs.
However, the Complainant filed a petition dated 31.1.2017 praying for appointment of an authorized Institution/Expert/Recognised Laboratory so that the alleged defects of the said A.C. may be determined. This petition is heard along with hearing of the petition of complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has filed examination in chief.
It is evident from the unchallenged evidence of the Complainant that the Complainant on several occasions reported regarding malfunction of the A.C. in dispute. It appears that he purchased the said A.C. on 31.1.2016 and lodged first complaint on 15.2.2016 which means only after a few days the said A.C. developed defects in it.
Since the Complainant repeatedly lodged complaint with the OP No.1/manufacturer regarding malfunction of the said A.C. and the OP No.1/manufacturer sent technicians on several occasions who even after servicing of the said A.C. failed to remove the defect. It reveals that the defects in the said A.C. are beyond repair. As per provision of Sec.14 of the C.P.Act, 1986, replacement of the said A.C. by new one of same description can do justice to the Complainant.
In such view of matter the petition dated 31.1.2017 is rejected.
However, it is stated by the Complainant that the OP No.1 sent technician on several occasions who attended the said A.C. It reveals that the OPs were not negligent to provide service but in spite of taking steps by them the defect could not be removed. Since no intention of causing harassment to the Complainant by the OPs is found we are inclined to pass no order as to compensation or costs.
In the result, the complaint petition succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the CC/613 of 2016 is allowed in part ex-parte against the OPs without costs.
The OPs are directed to replace the Air Conditioner in dispute by new one of same description within 30 days from the date of communication of this order or to refund the consideration amount of Rs.45,000/- within the above mentioned period.
In the event of non-compliance of this order or any part thereof, the Complainant may file execution application for execution of the decree.
