Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/481/2017

Ashish Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anil Kumar Garg Adv.

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	481/2017
Date of Institution	:	20.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	03/01/2018

 

                                                

                                                         

Ashish Garg son of Sh.Jai Kishan Garg, age 24 years r/o H.No.1004, Sector 9, Panchkula.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.       M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., Plot No.213, Industrial area, Phase-I (Opposite Bhushan Steel Factory), Chandigarh-160001.

 

2.       M/s Hitachi (Corporate Office), A-15, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

 

3.       M/s Gupta Vision, Shop No.1141/1, Near Children Park, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Anil Kumar Garg, Adv. for the complainant

                    None for OPs No.1 and 2.

                    None for OP No.3.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging therein that he purchased Hitachi Split Air Conditioner  from OP No.3  vide bill dated 27.05.2016 for Rs.38,900/- .  He got the said AC serviced on 04.05.2017 from OPs No.1 and 2 and thereafter it started giving the problem of low cooling and as such he got registered number of complaints with the OPs and even sent the email regarding the defect of the AC but to no effect. Finally, he got served a legal notice dated 22.05.2017 through registered post on 22.05.2017 upon the OPs.   Ultimately, OPs No.1 and 2 changed the compressor of the AC on 24/25.05.2017. According to the complainant, the AC is still giving the problem of low cooling after the replacement of the compressor and the OPs have failed to redress his grievance despite his repeated requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In their joint written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 have pleaded that the Courts at Ahmedabad shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  It has been pleaded that the complainant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove his allegations.  It has further been pleaded that the answering OPs had visited at the customer’s premises and provided adequate service support to his satisfaction and the complainant has made baseless allegations against the answering OPs.  According to the answering OPs, the defect in the product could only be determined with proper analysis or test of the goods by the appropriate laboratory as stated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has admitted the fact with regard to the purchase of the AC in question.  It has further been pleaded that the averments made in the complaint relates to OPs No.1 and 2. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OPs No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.           On 20.12.2017 none appeared on behalf of OPs.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose the complaint under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in their absence. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           The contention of OP No.1 and 2 that the Courts at Ahmedabad shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint does not hold any water because the complainant had purchased the AC in question from OP No.3  vide Invoice dated 27.05.2016 for Rs.38,900/- who is authorized dealer of OPs No.1 and 2 at Manimajra, Chandigarh and as such this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the objection of OPs No.1 and 2 is rejected accordingly.
7.           In the present case, it is not in dispute that the AC in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No.3 vide bill dated 27.05.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1.        It is also not in dispute that the AC in question was having one year comprehensive warranty and five year warranty on the compressor. The case of the complainant is that after service, the AC in question started giving problem of low cooling and OPs No.1 & 2 changed the compressor of the AC in question on 24/25.05.2017 after repeated requests and service of the legal notice Ex.C-2 but the AC in question is still giving the problem of low cooling. 
8.           On the other hand, though OPs No.1 and 2 have denied having received any complaint from the complainant with regard to any defect in the AC, in question after the replacement of the compressor.   However the complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit that OPs No.1 and 2 changed the compressor of the refrigerator on 24/25.05.2017 but even thereafter the same is not giving proper cooling.  In such circumstances, we are of the view that nothing more is required and it is proved beyond any doubt that the AC was having some defect, for which complaints were lodged with them within the warranty period, and ultimately its compressor was changed by them but the same also failed to improve its cooling. 
9.           Now coming to the prayer of the complainant for refund of the price of the AC, we are of the view that the same cannot be granted simply because apart from the problem of low cooling, no other defect has specifically been pointed out by him.  The complainant has also not adduced any expert evidence in support of his case that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the AC in question which cannot be removed and that the same needs to be replaced.  It is settled law that if a defect can be rectified by repairing/replacing the part(s), there is no need to replace the whole machine.
10.           In such circumstances, OPs No.1 & 2 were bound to repair the AC by repairing/replacing the necessary part(s) without charging anything from him as the same was within the warranty period.  Failure to do so, therefore, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part
11.            In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed qua OPs No.1 & 2.  OPs No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. To repair the defective AC of the complainant by repairing/replacing the necessary part(s), if any, free of cost;
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him.
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No. (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of directions as mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (iii).

12.           The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
13.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03/01/2018

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER