Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/304

M/s Grace Beauty Clinic Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rakesh Sabharwal

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 304 dated 17.11.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 02.07.2024. 

 

M/s. Grace Beauty Clinic Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at # 290-L, Model Town, Ludhiana through its Manager Director Sh. Jasdeep Singh Ahluwalia.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., SCF 4, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Adjoining Silver Stone Hotel, Near Bus Service Centre, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, Punjab.

Having Registered office at:- 9^th Floor, Abhijit Mithankahali Six Roads, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380006, India.                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rakesh Sabherwal, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is registered under the Companies Act and Sh. Jasdeep Singh Ahluwalia being Managing Director is authorized to file the present complaint. The complainant is running the business of beauty clinic and saloon at 290-L, Model Town, Ludhiana for which the complainant purchased one Hitachi Vanable Refrigerant Front Flow System comprising of Inverter Scrool/Compressor with R-410, a Refrigant having Indoor Ductable type unit etc. (hereinafter called the ‘product’) from the OP vide bill dated 27.10.2014, which was installed on the ground floor of the building. The complainant stated that he started using the system, the cost of which is reproduced as under:-

          Dated                             Amount

          30.10.2014                    Rs.4,35,388.00

          24.11.2014                    Rs.   88,704.00    

          29.01.2015                    Rs.4,94,024.00

          18.02.2015                    Rs.2,18,742.00    

          18.03.2015                    Rs.0,28,524.00

          Total                              Rs.12,20,382.00

 

The complainant further stated that on 06.08.2020, the VR unit comprising of air conditioners stopped working and he immediately contacted the OP but no response was given by the OP despite constant communication with Sh. Sidharth Sharma, an employee of the OP. The OP did not sent any person for repairing the air conditioning unit even after 45 days due to which the complainant suffered loss on daily basis. The complainant repeated contacted the OP but to no avail. According to the complainant, the OP agreed to repair on paying annual maintenance charges of Rs.1,32,160/- despite the complainant paid Rs.5900/- as inspection charges to the OP on 30.05.2020 and is further ready to pay the charges to be incurred on the repair of the air conditioning unit.

                   The complainant further stated that in the year 2018-2019 he paid Rs.46,920/- as repair charges and again paid Rs.1,34,017/- for the year 2020-2021 as repair charges. Further the complainant paid Rs.5900/- as inspection charges on 30.05.2020 but even then the OP failed to repair the unit and same is still not working. The complainant further requested Sh. Siddharth Sharma on 06.08.2020 for necessary repair and also deposited Rs.42,370/- on 19.08.2020 to the OP on his demand. The complainant further paid Rs.85,474/- on 31.08.2020 to the OP but the unit is still not working. The OP put the matter on lame excuses and due to non-working of unit, the complainant has been suffering huge financial loss of Rs.22,000/- per day beside the loss in income and clientage etc. The complainant many times requested the OP to repair the air conditioning unit but to no avail. Even the OP was unable to repair the unit and also failed to refund the entire amount causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP causing mental tension, harassment, huge financial loss to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 23.09.2020 upon the OP but no response was received. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OP to pay Rs.16,73,123/- along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability; suppression of material facts; the complainant is not a consumer; lack of cause of action etc. The OP stated that it carries the business in consumer durables compressor items – Window AC, Split AC, Commercial Air Conditioners, Refrigerators and their manufactured products pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production.  The OP has service centres having excellent set up for after sales servicing of the products through well qualified technicians. The OP further stated that the complainant purchased a Hitachi Air Conditioner from it on 27.04.2019 in a good and sealed condition after having full satisfaction with the said product, which carries a warranty for a period of one year and for a period of five years for the compressor as per which if there will be any issue problem with the said product then the company shall repair the same free of cost. According to the OP, in case of damage to the product or if any of the terms and conditions of the warranty policy is violated or the warranty period is expired then the warranty policy shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis to be paid by the customer. Whenever the complainant approached the OP for any issue with the said product, the same was duly addressed by its technicians. The complainant with malafide intention has field the repent complaint to harass and extort money from the OP. The OP further stated that it is ready to provide the services as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Moreover, as per condition of warranty, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty only covers the repair or replacement of any part in case of need.      

                    In the column Parawise Reply, the OP reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, the OP averred that the complainant is not a Consumer as it is a commercial entity and has purchased the said AC for commercial use. Further the complainant has not provided any complaint number lodged with the OP. The technician of the OP visited the premises and inspected all the units and found that outdoor and indoor PCB was burnt and all the units are out of warranty. As such, the replacement of any part of the AC will be chargeable hence the technician suggested for Annual Maintenance Charge but the complainant denied for the same. Thereafter, the technician explained that the replacement of part will be chargeable and the complainant has to pay for these commercial units. The OP further stated that as per last visit their technician replaced the PCB and after replacement of the PCB the entire unit was working properly as per job sheet dated 22.11.2020. Even the technician every time visited the complainant and resolved the issue established from job sheet dated 16.08.2020, 22.08.2020, 24.11.2020 and 22.01.2021. The complainant is not entitled to any refund. The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, Sh. Jasdeep Singh Ahluwalia, authorized person of the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy letter dated 27.10.2014 of the complainant written to the OP, Ex. C2 is the copy of cheque dated 27.10.2020 of Rs.2,90,615/-, Ex. C3 is the copy of hand written detail for balance amount of Rs.6,78,157/-, Ex. C4 is the copy of ledger of the complainant from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, Ex. C5 is the copy of invoice cum challan dated 30.10.2014, Ex. C6 is the copy of invoice cum challan dated 24.11.2014, Ex. C7 is the copy of invoice cum challan dated 29.01.2015, Ex. C8 is the copy of invoice cum challan dated 18.02.2015, Ex. C9 is the copy of invoice cum challan dated 18.03.2015, Ex. C10 is the copy of ledger of the complainant from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, Ex. C11 is the copy of tax invoice/revised invoice of Rs.5900/-, Ex. C12 is the copy of Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract, Ex. C13 is the copy of carriage receipt, Ex. C14 is the copy of tax invoice/revised invoice of Rs.8450.56, Ex. C15 is the copy of carriage receipt dated 22.08.2020, Ex. C16 is the copy of tax invoice/revised invoice of Rs.29,200/-, Ex. C17 is the copy of General Condition of Sale, Ex. C18 is the copy of detail of unit purchased, Ex. C19 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Jasdeep Singh and closed the evidence.

                   During the proceedings of the complaint, the complainant filed application for tendering additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 08.11.2023 subject to deposit of costs of Rs.500/-. In additional evidence, the complainant tendered documents i.e. Ex. C20 is the copy of tax invoice of Service Point dated 14.03.2020, Ex. C21 is the copy of tax invoice of Service Point dated 18.07.2022, Ex. C22 is the copy of tax invoice of Service Point dated 20.08.2022, Ex. C23 is the copy of tax invoice of A-One Spare Centre dated 16.02.2022, Ex. C24 is the copy of tax invoice of A-One Spare centre dated 16.02.2022, Ex. C25 is the copy of receipt voucher dated 15.02.2022 of A-One Spare Centre, Ex. C26 is the copy of receipt voucher dated 16.02.2022 of A-One Spare Centre, Ex. C27 is the copy of tax invoice dated 13.10.2020 of A-One Spare Centre, Ex. C28 is the copy of tax invoice dated 14.10.2020 of A-One Spare Centre and closed the additional evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Mohamad Afzal Vohra, Authorized Representative of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of Terms and conditions of the Warranty, Ex. R2 is the copy of job sheet dated 22.08.2020, Ex. R3 is the copy of job sheet dated 22.01.2022, Ex. R4 is the copy of job sheet dated 16.08.2020, Ex. R5 is the copy of  job sheet dated 24.11.2020 and closed the evidence. 

                   The OP did not lead rebuttal to the additional evidence and closed the same vide suffering separate statement dated 05.04.2024.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                 The complainant purchased a Variable Refrigerant Front Flow (VRF) System i.e. product from the OP for a total consideration of Rs.12,20,382/- paid in installments commencing from 30.10.2014  to 18.03.2015. As per Ex. R1, the OP extended warranty to the complainant against manufacturing/workmanship defect of the product. Warranty of the product (other than compressor) was one year and warranty for compressor was for 5 years from the date of invoice. In case of any defect, if found, in the product during the warranty period, the OP was liable for its repair and to further replace the parts free of charge. The OP’s obligation for repairing and providing replacement of defective part was limited as per terms and conditions contained in Ex. R1. Invoice cum challan Ex. C5 in this regard was generated on 30.10.2014 and thereafter, the product was installed in the premises of the complainant company. The complainant did not experience or encountered any malfunctioning in the said product till 06.08.2020 and enjoyed the usage of the product to its fullest almost more than 5½ years. However, on 06.08.2020, the V.R. unit of the air conditioning stopped working. The complaint was attended to by the technician of the OP by visiting the premises of the complainant company and job sheets dated 16.08.2020 and 22.08.2020 were generated and the defect was rectified. Since the product was beyond warranty period, the OP charged applicable repair charges from the complainant. Similarly, as and when the complainant reported the defect in the system of the product, engineer/technician of the OP visited and needful was done against the payment of charges. The complainant by way of additional evidence has produced copies of bills from M/s. Service Point Ex. C20 to Ex. C22 for the rectification work undertaken by the service engineers of the other company. Since the product was not within warranty, so the complainant was at liberty to get the repair/rectification of any fault which has arisen during the course of its usage. From the chronology of the events mentioned hereinbefore, it is evident that the OP has been rendering service to the complainant even after expiry of warranty period as stipulated in Ex. R1. It is not the case of the complainant that the product had some manufacturing defect due to which the functioning of Beauty Saloon was hampered and its customers were put to inconvenience. Even otherwise, no evidence of any staff member or the customer of the complainant is forthcoming in this regard. Further the complainant has enjoyed seamless usage of the product for more than 5½ years before he actually lodged his first complaint with the OP. So the complainant has failed to discharge initial onus to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. As well as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544), has held as under:-

“19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.  

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.07.2024.

Gobind Ram.