Smt. Sahana Ahmed Basu, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 28/02/2015 the complainant purchased an One Ton Hitachi Inverter Split AC (Indoor) being Model No. 012KVEA from Great eastern Trading Co., Salt Lake City. Complainant lodged a complaint about the non functioning of such AC and O.P.-2, being a sub contract company, sent their mechanic to inspect the AC Machine on 08/03/2018. After inspection the mechanic opined that due to leakage of gas pipe AC machine is not functioning and advised that the AC is required to be taken to the Workshop and accordingly the AC was taken away to the workshop on the same day. It was told that as the defect is within the warranty agreement the entire work would be done at free of cost but with a condition that the AC would be first checked by a mechanic expert in such field. After lapse of more than one months, on 18/04/2018 O.P.-2 broke his mum and told the complainant over phone that the AC is ready and accordingly they delivered the AC machine under Challan/Invoice No.1236 dated 18/04/2018 for an amount of Rs.4400/- together with another bill of Rs.750/- towards transportation charges being Invoice/Challan No.1235 dated 18/04/2018 and complainant paid the entire amount.
Complainant further alleged that the AC machine was suffering from manufacturing defects. The compressor of Split AC (Inverter Technology) holds 10 years warranty and the warrantee agreement provides sixty months warranty. Warranty period of the compressor is 60 months but the compressor was changed / replaced within 36 months from the date of purchased which proves that compressor suffers from manufacturing defect. The gas leakage occurred due to inborn defects. Complainant also stated that O.Ps. cannot charge any amount for repairing of any manufacturing defect within the warranty period. Hence, the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint to get relief as prayed for.
Initially O.P.-1 has entered appearance in the instant case but no the O.P. did not file W.V. Thus, the case has been proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.-1.
In spite of service of notice upon the O.P.-2, they did not appear to contest the case and the case has been proceeded ex-parte against O.P.-2 also.
Points for determination
- Are the O.Ps. deficient in rendering service to the complainant ?
- Are the O.Ps. indulged unfair trade practice ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Points No.-1 to 3.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Upon taking in to account of the entire fact of the consumer complaint and also considering the argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and further all over assessment and evaluation of the evidence as well as photocopies of the documents furnished by the complainant it is found that the complainant purchased one Hitachi 012KVEA/1.0 Ton Inverter Split AC (Indoor) being Model No.RAU012KVEA from Great Eastern, Salt Lake City against invoice dated 28/02/2015. The complainant made a complaint about non-functioning of the subject AC machine. On receipt of such complaint service was provided on 08/03/2018. Being the sub-contract company the O.P.-2 sent a mechanic and after inspection he opined that the defect was due to leakage of gas pipe and the machine had no gas in it. A thorough check up the AC machine was taken to the workshop on 08/03/2018 with an assurance that as per the warranty agreement provided in the Catalog Book the entire work will be done free of cost subject to some terms and conditions one of which is that the machine will be checked by an expert mechanic in such field first and upon his report and opinion same will be done. But thereafter, the O.P.-2 never received the phone of the complainant and kept him dark about the AC machine. This gesture of the O.P.-2 tantamount to deficiency in service. Finding no other alternative, the complainant sent two letters to the O.P.-2 which were returned back. On 18/04/2018 the complainant was informed over phone that the AC machine is ready and will be delivered to the complainant on the same day along with a challan being No.1236 dated 18/04/2018 wherein Rs.4,400/- was charged under three heads i.e. Gas Charge, Compressor Charge and Wash Service. Another bill was handed over to the complainant for an amount of Rs.750/- towards transportation charges being challan No.1235 dated 18/04/2018. Complainant paid both the bills. Here, we found a demonstration of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.-2. Under Clause-9.0 of the terms and conditions in regard to the warranty of the compressor, it is clearly stated that
“Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd. hereinafter referred as HHLI warrants to the purchaser of this Hitachi Split Air Conditioner that for a period of sixty months from the date of invoice or installation, whichever is earlier, HHIL will repair or replace the compressor which proves upon inspection by HHIL or any of its authorized sales dealer or qualified technician to have been defective due to manufacturing defect and such repair or replacement shall not attract any fresh warranty.”
On perusal of said clause, we find that O.P.-2 indulged unfair trade practice by charging Rs.750/- towards compressor charges.
The evidence of the complainant remains challenged and uncontroverted, we find some latches on the part of the complainant. Complainant submitted that –
“The confusion of AC Split machine (Inverter Technology) holds warranty of 10 years of any company however going by the book.”
But he failed to furnish any piece of evidence in support of his contention. The complainant further submitted that –
“The so called leakage in the gas pipe (if any) has been caused due to in born defect of the AC machine”. But complainant did not file any expert opinion in support of his submission. Whereas in the Website of HHIL it is notified that –
“Labour and transport charges for second year onwards to fifth year- charging gas, clearing and replacement of filter is not covered by warranty.”
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get reliefs in part.
Thus, all the points under determination answered in affirmative.
In result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps. in part with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only.
O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.750/- being the cost of compressor to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost.
O.Ps. are further jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order into execution, if the OP transgress to comply the order.
