BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWNI.

                                                                      Complaint No. 354 of 2011.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 9.8.2011.

                                                                      Date of Order: 7.8-2014.

Parhlad Rai Gupta son of late Shri Hukum Chand Gupta, resident of Murari Cinema Road, Near Gaushala, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

                              Versus

….…. Complainant

1. 1- M/s  Pawan Trading Company, Authorized Wholesale dealers Opp. Biju Tower, Circular Road, Near Meham Gate, Bhiwani, through its Prop.
2. Hitachi & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. M.G. Road, Plot No.74, Opposite Sector-14, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.
3. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. CO 392, Sector 37D, Chandigarh, through its Manger.

                                                                      …….Respondents.

               COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

               CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:         Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                    Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:   Shri S.L.Jangra, Adv. for complainant.

                Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv. for OPs.

ORDER

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased an Air Conditioner of Hitachi Company and Stabilizer from respondent No.1 which was manufactured by OP No.2 for a consideration of Rs.35590/- vide book No.8546 dated 9.5.2011. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Air Conditioner became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 being authorized service centre of the company returned the Air Conditioner to the complainant after making it in working condition. The complainant further alleged that the Air Conditioner again & again became out of order due to having manufacturing defect and the respondents were requested to replace the same with new one but they did not pay any heed, hence the complainant is deprived of use of the Air Conditioner since its purchase and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the replacement of the Air Conditioner or refund of the amount along with compensation and costs.

2.                Ops on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the AC of the complainant was replaced by OP No.1 at the instance of Ops No.2 & 3 against replacement challan No.2426 dated 13.8.2011 which was duly signed and received by the complainant. It is submitted that as and when it was brought to the notice of OP No.1 an engineer of the company was arranged for inspection of AC in question and he found the AC was in working condition and nothing was charged or spent by the Ops on repair of AC. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3-                 Both the parties have filed their duly sworn affidavit in their evidence to prove their respective version. 

4-                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

5-                 The counsel for the Ops contended that AC of the complainant was replaced by OP No.1 vide replacement challan No.2426 dated 13.8.2011 and the Photostat copy of the same is placed on record as Mark R2 which was duly signed and received by the complainant. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on any count from the respondents.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves partly acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner of Hitachi Company along with Stabilizer from respondent No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 for a consideration of Rs.35590/- vide book No.8546 dated 9.5.2011. It is also undisputed fact that the AC of the complainant became out of order within the warranty period i.e. on 7.6.2011 again on 6.7.2011 and the complainant was forced to bring it before the service centre of the company for repairs. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 9.8.2011 and the AC of the complainant was replaced on 13.8.2011. It was the duty of the respondents to replace the AC immediately when it was became out of order but they did not do so and the complainant has no alternate to file the present complaint. So, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he is entitled for compensation.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is hereby partly allowed with costs and the respondents are severally and jointly liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the respondents are directed:-                

1. To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of physical as well mental agony.
2. To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

                    The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case of default the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till its final realization. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 7.8.2015.

   Anita Sheoran)                                                    (Balraj Singh)       

     Member.                                                              Member.

District Consumer Disputes                District Consumer Disputes Forum, Redressal  Bhiwani.                              Redressal Forum, Bhiwani