CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.36/2010
SHRI A.B. AGGARWAL,
411, ABHINAV APARTMENT,
B-12, VASUNDHARA ENCLAVE,
DELHI - 96 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S HITACHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS
(INDIA) LTD., A-15, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI- 110044
- M/S HINDUSTAN REFRIGERATION STORES, 2,4&5,
NETAJI SUBHASH MARG, DARYA GANJ,
NEW DELHI- 110002.
- M/S SHEETAL AIRCON, D-17, PANDAV NAGAR,
DELHI – 110092. .…..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-18.01.2010
Date of Order- 09.01.2023
O R D E R
RITU GARODIA-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to defect in goods purchased by complainant from OP.
The complainant purchased one window AC having capacity 1.0 ton, quadricool, with Blue Bird Stabilizer for Rs. 24,000/- on 14.4.2009 from OP2, the dealer. OP1 and OP3 provided after sales services for air conditioners purchased within the warranty period from authorized dealers of Hitachi. The said air conditioner was installed on 19.4.2009. The unit did not function properly and it was replaced on 16.6.2009. The replaced AC was also having cooling problem. The complainant lodged numerous complaints telephonically and through e-mails. It is contended that technicians and engineers inspected the unit on 29.7.2009 and gave the field report that grill temperature was not obtained. They also tried to install the replaced unit in a different window but the air conditioner did not reach its desire temperature/ cooling.
The complainant alleged that another engineer from OP1 and OP3 visited the complainant house on 10.10.2009. After a detailed inspection, the said engineer mentioned that the air conditioner needed immediate replacement. However, the unit was not replaced.
The complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.11.2009 to refund the cost of AC. The complainant prays for the refund of the cost of AC i.e. Rs. 24,000/- along with 12% interest, Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses for telephone calls, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 22,000/- towards legal expenses.
OP1 in its reply has stated that it had made all the efforts to sort the problems of the complainant and has even replaced the AC. OP1 contended that the AC is not being used in a proper and recommended manner and is therefore, not able to achieve grill temperature. OP1 has stated that it is relying on e-mails exchanged with the complainant and the same have been filed by the complainant along with this complaint.
OP1 has reiterated that it has provided all due services with care promptly. OP1 has clarified that it has no connection with Blue Bird Stabilizer. OP1 has also contended that AC was functioning properly after installation but was replaced to satisfy the complainant. OP1 has specifically denied that the unit was having manufacturing defect.
OP2, the dealer, in its reply has stated that the product was purchased by the complainant. OP2 has clarified that after sales services are provided directly by the manufacturer and OP2 cannot be liable for any defect in the product.
OP2 and OP3 were proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 9.12.2013.
Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:-
- Copy of invoice is exhibited as Ex.CW1/A.
- Copy of acknowledgment receipts is exhibited as Ex. CW/B.
- Copy of e-mails are exhibited as Ex. CW1/C(colly).
- Copy of reminders are exhibited as Ex. CW1/D(colly).
- Copy of field reports are exhibited as Ex. CW1/E.
- Copy of letter dated 6.10.2009 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/F.
OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Mohit Sharma, Area Service Manager and authorized representative. OP1 has again relied on the e-mails filed by the complainant. No documents have been filed by OP1.
None appeared to assist the Commission at the time of arguments. Therefore, the Commission decided to proceed with this matter as per law with materials on record.
This Commission has given a thoughtful consideration to material on record. The invoice dated 14.4.2009 shows that one Hitachi air conditioner having capacity 1.0 ton/ quadricool was purchased for Rs. 19,111/- and one Blue Bird Stabilizer was purchased for Rs. 2,222/-. Admittedly the air conditioner was replaced on 16.6.2009. Complainant has filed a series of e-mail with OP. These e-mails have been admitted and relied on by OP. E-mail dated 2.7.2009 from complainant to OP states that replaced AC was having cooling problem. The said e-mail also states that the gap on the side wall of the AC and the top wall of the AC was more than what was specified in OP’s booklet for the air circulation. E-mail dated 10.7.2009 from OP to complainant states that the space for ventilation is not proper and the shed covering the AC should be removed. E-mail dated 12.7.2009 from complainant to OP states that the window where AC was installed was having more space than what was required in the installation book i.e. one meter. E-mail dated 22.7.2009 from OP to complainant gives two option to complainant: either the complainant should remove the shed covering the unit or get a money refund with 35% depreciation. In another e-mail dated 22.7.2009 from OP to complainant it is stated that the air conditioner can be put in another window. E-mail dated 23.7.2009 from complainant to OP states that the room size is only 108 sq. feet and the window in which the AC is installed is open from all sides and there is no ventilation issue and still the proper grill temperature is not confirmed. E-mail dated 28.7.2009 from complainant to OP reiterates the earlier e-mail. E-mail dated 4.8.2009 from complainant to OP states that OP has sent a team to check a grill temperature. Though, it has rained on that day and the ambient temperature was very less, a very small change in temperature of the room was noted when the AC was running. Complainant has asked for refund or replacement of the unit in all these e-mails.
It is clear from these e-mails that there were certain cooling problems occurring in the said air conditioner and OP was ready to refund of the cost of air conditioner @35% depreciation. The unit was also installed at a window which was open from all sides.
Field report dated 29.7.2009 of OP states “After running AC around 15 minutes room temperature is15, grill temperature at another place 15.7, return temperature is 24.4,. Grill temperature not obtained and therefore AC is having defect and hence need replacement immediately”. Field report dated 10.10.2009 states “Warranty Card collected. AC to be replaced immediately. Inordinate delay has also taken place.”
It is clear from the field reports that the requisite grill temperature is not obtained and the engineer themselves are stating that the unit should be replaced immediately.
OP1 has stated in its reply that the air conditioner is not able to achieve grill temperatures as it was not used in a proper and recommended manner. Now, when OP1 has admitted that the air conditioner is not working properly due to some issues with grill temperature for which the complainant himself is responsible, the initial onus on the complainant to show that AC was defective stands discharged and burden to prove shifts on the OP1 to prove that defect occurred due to some improper and non-recommended use of air conditioner. OP1 has not explained in its pleadings as to what is a proper and recommended manner of using the said air conditioner and how the complainant was unable to follow the recommendations. OP has not filed any supporting photographs or engineers report wherein it is stated that the unit was not being used properly. In fact, it has not complied with the report of its own service technicians dated 29.7.2009 and 10.10.2009 which recommended immediate replacement air conditioner unit.
Air conditioners have become items of necessity in the scorching heat of Delhi. A consumer purchases this product in April to get relief from summer heat. Instead, he spends months following up with the manufacturer and after sales technicians for the air conditioner to work properly. The manufacturer/ service centre after several visits and after receiving field reports endorsing the replacement of the AC fails to allay the grievance of its own customers. Hence, we find OP1 and OP3 guilty of selling defective product and replacing it with another defective product. We direct OP1 and OP3:
- To refund Rs. 19,111/- alongwith 9% interest p.a. from the date of purchase till realization.
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, agony and physical inconveniences.
- To pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Copy of the order be supplied/ sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
File be consigned to record room
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RITU GARODIA) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
