BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.264 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 12.07.2019

      Date of Decision: 23.02.2023

Shri Gaurav Gupta, resident of House No.3, New Model House, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd.      Formerly known as Hitachi Home & Life Solutions India Ltd.,     Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, District Mehsana, Gujrat,         India Through its Managing Director.

2.       M/s Kaura Electronics, 16, New Adarsh Nagar, J. P. Road,      Jalandhar Through its Authorized Signatory.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Sohit Talwar, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Y. V. Rishi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. J. L. Naagar, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased Hitachi SAC 1/5 TR Air Conditioner having branch KX RSB518HBEA Serial No. 180Q08669 from the OP No.2 being the Retailer of the OP No. 1 vide Invoice No. T/19-20/53 dated 15.4.2019 for a sum of Rs. 42,500.00. At the time of purchase of the air conditioner, the OP No. 2 made tall claims about the product and assured that it was a good Air Conditioner and the entire after sale services would be provided by it for and on behalf of the OP No. 1. Since the date of purchase of the Air Conditioner, the complainant is suffering at the hands of the OP No. 2 as well as OP No.1. Since the date of purchase of Air Conditioner, its wings were not working when the unit was put on operation after half an hour and it started working and its compressor stopped working. The complainant brought the defect to the knowledge of the OP No.2. The matter was brought to the notice of OP No. 2 but it did not provide any effective-service to the complainant and kept on dilly dallying the matter on one or the other pretext saying that it was not responsible to provide after sale service and it is only the OP No.1, who is responsible to provide after sales service. After great persuasion made by the complainant, the OP No. 2 agreed to write down the complaint and assured to forward the same with the Authorized Dealer who would provide after sale service. After 4-5 days, when the unit was not put in order, the complainant again approached the OP No. 2 and it advised the complainant to write his complaint with Customer Care Number of Hitachi. The complainant got lodged his complaint with Authorized Representative of the OP No.1, and after 2-3 working days, the Technical Staff came to the house of the complainant and just removed the dust and assured that it would now work properly. But after half an hour of leaving the Technical Staff, the compressor of unit again stopped working and it is only the fan which is in operation. The complainant also lodged complaint through e-mails and Customer Care Numbers of the OP No. 1 and physically approached the OP No. 2 on number of times, but it did not evoke any positive response till today. The complainant is blessed with a newly born baby and he just purchased the Air Conditioner for the relief and care of newly born child. But the complainant feels that he has been made a fool by the OPs by selling a product which is not upto mark nor there is proper provision of after sale service of the unit. The Air Conditioner has inherent manufacturing defect and the OPs did not provide any service to the complainant right from the date of its installation and a huge amount paid by the complainant for purchase of the product went waste. The complainant finds himself to be fooled by the OPs and the
OPs, have cheated and defrauded the complainant by selling a defective unit. The complainant does not want to keep the product anymore and requires back the price of the product and installation charges paid by him to the Engineer. The act and conduct is clear cut unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service for which, has caused mental agony, stress, harassment, humiliation, loss of morey, inconvenience to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to immediately replace the defective unit with fresh piece of AC or to refund the price of the unit with installation charges etc. paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the unit till final realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses be also given.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not provided any documentary proof in support of the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. It is further averred that the present complaint, filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Commission by suppressing the material facts. From perusal of the instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made therein, are vague, baseless and with malafide intent. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the product in question and deficiency in service on behalf of the OP No.1 without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. As per the complaint, the complainant had purchased one Split Air Conditioner from OP No.2 for Rs.42,500/- (including taxes) on 15.04.2019 in good and sealed packed conditions after having full satisfaction with the said product. That the said products carries a warranty for a period of one year, however the compressor carries a warranty for a period of Five years. As per the warranty policy, if there will be any issue/problem with the said product then the company shall repair the same free of cost. However in the 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. On receipt of the complaint made by the complainant in respect of blockage of Ac filter, the technicians of OP1 visited at the complainant premises on dated 20.05.2019 and a normal wear and tear work was conducted after which the product was working properly in all the parameters but the complainant did not acknowledged the services provided to him and refused to sign the Job sheet reason best known to him. It is further averred that after receiving the allege legal notice from the complainant the technicians of OP No.1 approached the complainant several times for the feedback and necessary work but the complainant clearly refused for revisit and re-checking of the product. Further as per the last visit of the technician of OPI the said product was giving problem due to the erratic and redundant voltage and Stabilizer defect. It is submitted that the complainant was duly advised to change the stabilizer because the voltage issue was found and was an inadequate supply of electricity in the product. Hence the complaint shall be dismissed with exemplary cost in favor of OP No 1. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to prove any cause of action arose if any in its favor on behalf of the OP No.1. Hence on the ground itself the present complaint is to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant just wants to harass and extort monies from the OP No.1 by the way of this case which leads to waste of the time of this Commission. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the AC is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint against OP No.2 is absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious even to the knowledge of the Complainant himself and the same is not at all maintainable against the OP No.2/M/s Kaura Electronics and is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP No.2/Kaura Electronics with special, heavy and exemplary costs. It is further averred that as per the terms mentioned on the Invoice itself it has been made amply: clear in unequivocal terms that anything contrary to the performance of the product is subject to the realm of the manufacturer i.e. OP No. 1. The term reads as:

          “3.     Warranty/Guarantee would be from product Manufacturer's”.

Thus, in case of any complaint regarding the performance of the product the manufacturer itself is answerable and not the answering OP No.2. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.2 with costs. It is further averred that at the very opening of the Terms and Conditions under the head "Warranty" in the "Owner's Manual" by Johnson Control - Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. (Formerly known as Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Ltd., for short "JCH-IN/Opposite Party No.1/the manufacturers, as under: "JCH-IN" extends this warranty only in case of defects of manufacturing and/or workmanship and undertakes to replace/repair at the sole discretion of JCH-IN leading to the failure of equipment within a period of twelve calendar months from date of installation or fifteen calendar months from the date of Invoice, whichever occurs earlier, to the original purchaser provided the machine is still in possession and under normal use, of all such components forming part of scope of supply of JCH-IN except rubber/plastic parts (i.e. all non-metallic parts) electric and electronic components like motors, capacitors, remote control units, power stabilizers, switches, Miniature Circuit Breakers, plugs/sockets. Items which are subject to normal wear & tear due to operation etc., which upon examination will reveal to the entire satisfaction of “JCH-IN” to be having any manufacturing defects.” Thus, under the circumstances it is amply clear that the OP No. 2 has excellently extended its services only as a goodwill gesture and only for satisfaction of the Complainant. The complaints received for the Complainant, as a matter of goodwill gesture, were further transmitted and forwarded for onward processing by the OP No. 1. The Answering OP in no way is responsible for any deficiency in service. Therefore, the present Consumer Complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.2. As per the recitals of the Complaint itself as enshrined in Para No.2 under the head Facts of the Complaint it has been mentioned that the product allegedly is inflicted with some inherent manufacturing defect, thus, in view of Terms and Conditions of Warranty, the OP No.1 is directly and expressly responsible and is liable for redressal of the alleged complaint of the Complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.2/Kaura Electronics, with costs. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the AC is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                The complainant has proved that he purchased Hitachi SAC 1/5 TR Air Conditioner having branch KX RSB518HBEA Serial No. 180Q08669 from the OP No. 2 for a sum of Rs.42,500/- vide invoice dated 15.04.2019 Ex.C-1. It has been alleged by the complainant that since the date of purchase of AC, its wings were not working when the unit was put on operation after half an hour and when it started working and its compressor stopped working. This defect was brought to the notice of the OP No.2, but no effective service was provided by the OP No.2 on the pretext that it is the job of the OP No.1, who is responsible after sale service. He has further alleged that again after 4-5 days, when the unit was not put in order, he approached the OP No.2 and lodged his complaint with authorized representative of OP No.1. He sent emails and called on customer care numbers also, but no positive response was given. There is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the new AC did not work and despite requests the grievance of the complainant was not removed. He has alleged the unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Legal notice was served and has been proved as Ex.C-2. Postal receipts are Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4.

8.                The Ld. Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 has submitted that this complaint is not maintainable qua them that the product carries warranty for a period of one year, but the compressor carries a warranty for a period of five years. As per the warranty policy, if there will be any issue/problem with the said product, the company shall repair the same free of cost and if any term is violated or the product is out of warranty, then the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis. He has proved on record the copy of warranty policy Ex.OP2/1. He has further submitted that when the complaint of the complainant was received regarding the blockage of the AC filter, which was corrected by the technicians of the OP No.1 on 20.05.2019 and the product was working properly, but the complainant refused to sign the job sheet. He has proved on record two job sheets Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP2/3. The complainant again made complaint and as per the last visit of the technician, the product was giving problem due to the erratic and redundant voltage and stabilizer defect. No manufacturing defect has been proved by the complainant. Therefore, the product cannot be replaced or the price cannot be refunded as there is no opinion of any expert to show that there is any manufacturing defect in the product.

9.                It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the AC from the OP No.2 on 15.04.2019. Though, the complainant has alleged that it started troubling immediately after and he made complaints and emails, but no such complaint or email has been produced by the complainant on record. He has produced only the invoice, which is not disputed. There is no opinion of the expert to show that any manufacturing defect is there. However, the OP No.2 has produced on record the job sheet, though no date has been mentioned, but the complaint has been mentioned as ‘filter block’ and the same was checked by the technician and the product was found OK. Again the OP No.2 visited the premises and as per job sheet Ex.OP2/3 there are remarks ‘called customer for feedback’ and the further remarks are that customer refused to revisit and checking. There was further observation on 09.07.2019 in Ex.OP2/3 that as per the last visit AC was working fine. The problem was voltage down and stabilizer defective. So, as per the documents produced on record by the OPs, the AC was fine and it was working properly. The complainant has failed to prove that nobody visited the premises rather it was the complainant, who refused for revisit. To rebut this fact, the complainant has not produced on record any document to show that there was an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As per the job sheet, the AC was working properly and there was problem of voltage and stabilizer only. When the first complaint was moved by the complainant, the product was within warranty and it is still in warranty for compressor as per the written statement filed by the OPs. When the complainant has failed to prove the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the product cannot be replaced nor any refund can be ordered. However, if the complainant is still facing any problem regarding the working of the AC, he can approach the OPs and the OPs are directed to make necessary repair, if any, free of cost. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of without any compensation and litigation expenses. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

23.02.2023         Member                          Member           President