STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.683 of 2009)

Mr. Rajansh Thukral s/o Shri G.L. Thukral r/o #252/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.                 M/s Utility Trading Engineers (P) Limited, SCO 309, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2.                 M/s Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Limited, 9^th Floor, Abhijeet, Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad 380006.

3.                 Saini Brothers SCO 156-160, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Mr. Ambrish Sharma, authorized representative of the appellant.

                   Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 exparte.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                           The complainant purchased a Hitachi Split AC vide invoice dated 19.5.2008 for Rs.33,400/- and also paid installation charges of Rs.2,135/- vide invoice dated 31.5.2008.  The installation was defective and, after lot of follow ups, finally the AC was commissioned on 31.5.2008.  During the trial of installation and commissioning of the machine, the gas had leaked and it was filled again, as there was some defect in the compressor. The gas of the compressor leaked again, during the onset of the next summer season, and was filled by the technicians on 24.4.2009. The complainant vide notice dated 5.5.2009 asked for the rating certificate, pursuant to which the service engineer of the OP, alongwith his team, visited the residence of the complainant on 7.5.2009 and tried to rectify the AC, and replace the water drain pipe.  The complainant withdrew the notice dated 5.5.2009 under the belief that the AC was rectified but, upon checking, he found that the water from the AC was not going into the drain pipe but was dripping inside the room. The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the OPs, through telephone, email and letter, but nothing was done.  It was stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.

3.                           In the written reply, the OPs admitted that the split AC was purchased by the complainant.  It was stated that the same was installed by them, as per his wishes, at a particular place, which was technically not suitable.  It was further stated that the complainant was advised to install the indoor unit, on the wall, against the kitchen where it was near the drain for outlet of water.  It was further stated that the gas did not leak due to fault, in the compressor, but due to changing of the position of the outdoor unit.  It was denied that there was any defect, in the auto-cut system of the thermostat.  It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice.  The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.                            The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant.

7.                           Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 were duly served, but none appeared, on their behalf.  Hence they were proceeded against exparte.

8.                           We have heard the authorized representative of the appellant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

9.                           The authorized representative of the appellant, submitted that right from the day the complainant purchased the aforesaid split AC, it developed some problem, and the gas leaked.   He further submitted that the gas was filled, but it again leaked  during the onset of next summer season and was filled by the technicians on 24.4.2009.  He further submitted that the service engineer of the OP, alongwith his team, visited his premises on 7.5.2009 and tried to rectify the AC.  They replaced the drain pipe. Subsequently, it was found that the drain pipe was faulty and the water started dripping inside the room.  He further submitted that it was not on account of the installation of the AC at an improper place, that the defect developed in the AC.  He further submitted that since the AC continued giving trouble, and the defects therein, could not be rectified, by the engineers of the OPs, left with no alternative, he got it repaired on 24.7.2009, from Sant Enterprises  and paid a sum of Rs.5,408/-.  He further submitted that the Ops were completely deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice, but the District Forum was wrong in dismissing the complaint.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

10.                       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the authorized representative of the appellant, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.  The date of purchase of the split AC as 19.5.2008 by the complainant, from the OPs, and the installation thereof on 20.5.2008 are not disputed.  Installation charges of Rs.2,135/- were paid by the complainant.   On 29.5.2008, the engineers of the OPs came and gave the remarks “change in position of outdoor unit”.  On30.7.2008, the engineers of the OPs found the AC drain and AC working O.K.  On 28.4.2009, the engineers of the OPs found the leakage of gas of the AC. On the same date, gas of the AC was filled/changed and the working of the same was found to be O.K.  On 7.5.2009, the AC drain pipe installation was done and working was found to be OK by the engineers of the OPs.  Even thereafter, the AC continued giving trouble.  It is evident that right from the date of installation of the AC, it was not working properly.  When the engineers of the OPs failed to rectify the defect, left with no alternative, the complainant got the same repaired from Sant Enterprises for a sum of Rs.5,408/-, the invoice in regard whereto is dated 24.7.2009 at page 30 of the file of the District Forum.  This shows that there was major defect in the AC, as a result whereof, it was not working properly.  Whenever, the engineers of the OPs came to rectify the defects, they did not pay proper attention to rectify the defects, pointed out by the complainant.  The observations of the District Forum that the defects in the AC, were not major, but occurred on account of normal wear and tear, are not correct. The District Forum was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that there were only minor repairs in the AC, which were done by the engineers of the OPs.  The OPs were certainly deficient, in rendering service, as a result whereof the complainant had to suffer financially as also harassment was caused to him.  The District Forum did not properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, and fell in an error, in dismissing the complaint.

11.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The order impugned is set aside.  The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,408/-, spent by him on the repair of the AC, with interest @ 9% per annum from 24.7.2009  (the date when this amount was paid by the complainant for repair of the AC) alongwith  compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.2,000/-, within thirty days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.  In case the OPs fail to pay the amount within the stipulated period, then they will have to pay the amount of Rs.5,408/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- = Rs.8,408/- with penal interest @ 12% per annum from 24.7.2009 till realization of the amount, besides costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/-.

12.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

4^th May 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER