Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/382/2016

Sukhwinder Singh Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solution (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/382/2016
Date of Institution	:	26/05/2016
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2017

 

Sukhwinder Singh Saini s/o Gurpal Singh r/o H.No.452, Shivalik Vihar, Patiala Road, Zirakpur.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solution (India) Ltd., Plot No.213, Ind. Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Manager Operations. 

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Saurabh Garg, Counsel for OP

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the complainant booked an air conditioner, having price of Rs.40,100/-, at exhibition CII Coolex by paying Rs.500/- vide cash memo dated 10.4.2016.  At that time, the company executive told to deliver and install the air conditioner after 11.4.2016 or within a week at complainant’s home, but, it failed to do so despite numerous requests and notice. As per the complainant, he wanted to install the AC in his children’s room as his son was undergoing eye treatment, but all went in vain. It has been alleged that mostly companies offer free installation, stabilizer and discount upto Rs.10,000/- on MRP in the exhibition, but, due to the act of the OP, he had to buy another AC which was Rs.15,000/- costlier than the exhibition price. Hence, this consumer complaint.
2.         The OP in its written statement has not disputed the factual matrix.  However, it has been averred that the complainant besides booking the AC was required to fulfil his obligation to pay the balance amount for the product. But, he never approached the OP and never fulfilled his part of the obligation.  It has been denied that there was any commitment or offer for free installation, stabilizer and discount.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OP.
6.         It is evident from Annexure A that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.500/- to OP towards the booking of one air conditioner with total price of Rs.40,100/-.  As per the case of the complainant, the aforesaid AC was to be installed on the very next day i.e. 11.4.2016, but, the OP failed to do the same despite numerous requests i.e. emails (Annexure B & C) and legal notice (Annexure E). The sole grouse of the complainant is that despite various requests, the OP never redressed his grievance specially when he was feeling like to get the product in question installed immediately due to the sickness of his son who was undergoing eye treatment.
7.         The stand taken by the OP is that the complainant himself did not fulfil his obligation to pay the balance amount for the product, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part. 
8.         After going through the evidence on record, it is evident over Annexure A, the booking slip, that the deliveries of the consignment will start after completion of the exhibition, but, despite various emails (Annexure B & C), the OP never resolved the issue in question; rather the customer service centre of the OP wrote an email dated 3.5.2016 (Annexure C) by regretting for the inconvenience caused to its customer i.e. the complainant and assurance was given to resolve the issue very shortly.  Even a notice (Annexure E) was given by the complainant.  A perusal of Annexure A makes it clear that the bookings at the exhibition were done with an intention to deliver the consignment, but, there is no communication on behalf of the OP for the fulfilment of obligation of the remaining payment.  It is an admitted fact of the OP that it has gathered a lot of goodwill in India and holds almost the highest reputation in the manufacturing of air conditioners in the market of India and its motto is to provide the best services to the customers.  However, in the present case, even a small issue of installing one AC even after receiving the booking amount, of course subject to the remaining payment by the complainant, could not be resolved which shows illegal/unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Undoubtedly, merely by paying the booking amount the AC could not be installed, but, despite repeated requests, telephonic calls, legal notice and even during the pendency of the present case, no positive response was given by the OP. Hence, the act of the OP has wasted the precious time of the complainant to get involved in the present unnecessary litigation.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.  The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund the booking amount of Rs.500/- paid by the complainant;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.1,500/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/08/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member