Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/668/2022

Kartar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Triveni Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Lubana

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Kartar Singh, aged 45 years, son of Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of House no. 2227/8, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101.

COMPLAINANT

Versus

1. M/s Triveni Electronics, Chandigarh, Plot No. 26/3, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh through its authorized Signatory/Manager.

2. M/s Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd., Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi, Distt. Mehsana Gujarat, India-382727 through its authorized Signatory/Manager.

3. Unique Cooling solutions, Shop No. 101, Sector 80, VPO Mauli Baidwan, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its authorized Signatory/Manager.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant in May 2021 purchased AC of Hitachi company (hereinafter to be referred as subject AC) from OP No.1  the authorized dealer of OP No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.32,300/-  vide bill Annexure C-1.  The authorized mechanic of the OPs installed the subject AC  in the house of the complainant in the Month of June 2021.  However, after some time the subject AC started noise as a  result of which  the complainant lodged  complaint in the office of OP No.2. On this the engineer of OPs namely one Piyush  came to the house of the complainant and changed some parts of the AC including wings  and motor. However, the problem again persisted and when the complainant again approached the OPs for the redressal of his grievance, complainant was informed that  the noise is just air cutting voice. Thereafter the complainant lodged complaint with OP No.2 repeatedly by sending emails vide Annexure C-2 to C-5  but nothing was done to redress the grievance of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached OP No.1 but it asked the complainant to send complaint to customer
2. OPs No.1&3  were properly served and when they did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on  vide order dated 11.1.2023 and  20.10.2023 respectively.
3. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts. However, it is admitted that the subject AC was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1. All customers of all the products manufactured by the answering OP  are  provided services through a large network of authorized service centres and well qualified technicians and all  customers are provided toll free number 24x7. In fact  the complainant has filed the present complaint which is an abuse of process of law. Whenever the complainant approached the answering OP, the engineers of the answering OP removed  the defect. It is further  alleged that the subject product was having warranty for a period of one year and a period of five years for the compressor only and all the repairs were done during the warranty  period free of cost.  The complainant was asked by the answering OP through letter dated 16.3.2022 for appointment to visit the premises of the complainant in order to inspect the said product  but the complainant did not respond. The answering OP  is still ready to resolve the issue and in this manner, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the complainant is not an expert to opine the malfunction of the subject AC nor he has led any expert opinion in order to prove manufacturing defect if any in the subject product through expert report or warranty period. The complainant is neither entitled for the replacement of the product nor to seek refund of the invoice price. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP .

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant had purchased the subject AC from the OP No.1 vide invoice Annexure C-1  on 2.5.2021  and due to the COVID19 pandemic the subject AC was installed in the house of the complainant in the month of June 2021 and after few days of the  installation, the complainant lodged several complaints with the OPs vide Annexure C-2 to C-5 from 19 August 2021 to October 2021 i.e. within the warranty period with the complaint of noise problem in the  subject AC, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is manufacturing defect in the subject AC and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if there is  no manufacturing defect in the subject AC and the complaint being false and frivolous liable to be dismissed.
   2. In order to prove the manufacturing defect in the subject AC the complainant has proved copies of complaints lodged by him through emails with the OPs vide Annexure C-2 to C-5 which clearly indicates that the subject complaints were lodged by the complainant within few months of the installation of the subject AC and the complainant has brought the subject problem to the notice of the OPs and except at one instance when the OPs changed parts of the AC including wings and motor, the OP No.2 stopped attending the complaints of complainant and  the OP No.2  has come with the plea that the complainant was asked by it to allow the engineer to inspect the subject AC but the complainant has not responded to the said requests of the OP  No.2.  However, as there is no evidence by OP No.2 to prove that  the OP No.2 ever made any effort to remove the subsequent defects, which were pointed by the complainant qua unwanted noise in the subject AC, it is safe to hold that the defect with which the complainant was aggrieved of qua the noise in the subject AC has not been removed by the OPs till date as admittedly nothing has come on record that OP No.2 ever made any  effort to redress the said grievance of the complainant.
   3. The learned counsel for OP No.2 has put reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cased titled as  Stereocraft Vs. Monotype India Ltd., New Delhi (2000 NCJ SC 59) wherein it is clearly held that when terms of the warranty do not cover refund or replacement then the Consumer cannot claim either replacement or refund during or after the lapse of the warranty period. The Consumer can only claim repairing of the product if permissible under the terms of the service contract OR warranty.
   4. However, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present case as it  stands proved on record that the complainant approached the OPs several times and reported about the defects  i.e. unwanted noise in the subject AC  within few months of its installation i.e. within one year of warranty and further when it stands proved on record that manufacturing defect has not been removed  till date and the complainant being consumer has suffered a lot during three summer season i.e.2021 to 2023, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the subject AC.  
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹.32,300/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 19.8.2021 when the complainant lodged the complaint vide Annexure C-2

       till onwards.

2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. After compliance of order by OPs the complainant shall return the subject AC to the OPs and the OPs shall collect the same at their own risk and cost.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.