DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.288 of 26.7.2016

                                      Decided on:   31.5.2017

Bhupinder Singh son of Sh.Mukhtiar Singh resident of Ward No.3, Dardi Colony, Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Nixon Electronics, Post Office Road, Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala through its owner Nixon
2. The Manager, Service Operations, M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. 9^th Floor, Abhijeet-1, Mithakhali Six Roads, Navragpura, Ahmedabad-380 006.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.B.K.Sharma,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Parties ex-parte.                                  

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one Hitachi window A.C.1.5 ton Model No.RAW-218KSD bearing Sr.No.120C  91242,  compressor No.HIXSJ2425225 & 4511692F14L014095 alongwith stabilizer from Op no.1 for an amount of Rs.26,200/- vide bill No.8426 dated 4.6.2012. It is averred that after three months of the said purchase, the said A.C.stopped working properly. The complainant approached OP no.1 who suggested the complainant to lodge a complaint on customer care No.0124-3833500. On 21.4.2013, a mechanic visited the house of the complainant and sorted out the problem.After 4-5 ays, the said A.C. again stopped working and the complainant again lodged a complaint on the customer care of Op no.2.Thereafter, the complainant approached Op no.1 and requested it to either sort out the problem or replace the said A.C. but to no use. The complainant again lodged a complaint on the customer care number on 21.5.2013, 24.7.2014 and 7.9.2015 but the OPs failed to solve the problem. Due to defective A.C. the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and approached the OPs many times but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant till the filing of the complaint.The complainant lodged the last complaint on the customer care No.16070601582 on 6.7.2016 but the OPs did not rectify the problem in the A.C. of the complainant. On 6.7.2016, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs but to no use.Lastly the complainant was compelled to buy a new A.C. for Rs.47000/-on  25.7.2016. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit, alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and his ld. counsel closed the evidence.
4. The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C1, is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the window A.C. on 4.6.2012. Ex.C2 is the warranty card, which shows that the compressor of the A.C. was under 5 years warranty. Ex.C4 is the legal notice and Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 are the postal receipts of the legal notice sent by the complainant .Ex.C7 is the list of the complaints lodged by the complainant on the customer care number of the OPs. In its evidence, the complainant has submitted that after filing of the complaint before this Forum, a mechanic of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and after inspecting the  A.C. and voltage of V.Guard company, disclosed that due to excess supply of power by V.Guard Voltage, the compressor of the A.C. got burnt and there was no fault in the A.C. On 12.8.2016, the complainant lodged a complaint with V.Guard company regarding fault in the Voltage/stabilizer and their technician thoroughly examined the voltage and found that there was no fault in the stabilizer and report of the technician is exhibited as Ex.C8.So it is wrong that the compressor got burnt due to  excess supply of power as the stabilizer of the A.C. was OK as per Ex.C8.
6. In the present case, the compressor of the A.C. was under five years warranty and it got defective during warranty period and the OPs were bound to replace the same, which they failed to do so and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs no.1&2 to replace the compressor of the A.C. and make the A.C. functional without charging any amount from the complainant. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter , file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:31.5.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER