Date of Filing : 04.10. 2010
Date of Order : 23.03.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.31/2011
WEDNESDAY THIS 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2016
K. Bhawatharini,
No.5, Srinivasa Avenue Road,
R.A.Puram,
Chennai 600 028. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. M/s. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions
India Ltd.,
Customer Care,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Hitachi Complex,
Karan Nagar,
Kadi Dist. Mehsana Gujarath,
India.
2. M/s. Rathna Cools Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Sales Manager,
No.36/1 Rajabather Street,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : M/s. V.Bhavani Subbaroyan & another
For the Opposite party-1 : M/s. S.Venkatesan & another
For the opposite party-2 : Exparte.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the Air Conditioner with new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows
The complainant stated that he purchased a Hitachi Split Air Conditioner unit from the 2nd opposite party on 14.10.2009 and the Air conditioner was working for two month after that giving lot of complaints. The non functioning of air conditioner was reported to the 1stopposite party who is the manufacturer, through toll free customer care centre and the 1st opposite party sent their technician and found the supply of electricity could not withstand, hence he exchanged with a premier 4KV Double Booster stabilizer on 2.6.2010 and despite changing of this Double Booster Stabilizer it was not functioning properly. Again the complainant issued legal notice to the 1st opposite party on 14.6.2010 and the same was received by the opposite parties, the opposite parties preferred not to send any reply. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint through email to the 1st opposite party engineer came and attended to the same and filled the gas made it work for temporarily. Even now the A/c unit is not working properly and inspite of the complainant’s several requests the opposite parties never bothered to attend the same. Hence the act the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claims to replace the Air conditioner with new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written version 1st opposite party in brief is as follows:
2. The 1st opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is true that the complainant had purchased Air conditioner from the 2nd opposite party on 14.10.2009. During the month of June 2010 they received a complaint from the complainant about the Air conditioner stating that the same was not working properly. The opposite party immediately attended the complaint and the problem was solved. The complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 2nd opposite party was set exparte on 7.6.2011.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of 1st Opposite party not filed and no document was marked on the side of the 1st opposite party.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
6. POINT 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version filed by the 1st opposite party and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite party.
7. The complainant purchased a Hitachi Split Air Conditioner unit from the 2nd opposite party on 14.10.2009 and the Air conditioner was working for two month after that giving lot of complaints. The non functioning of air conditioner was reported to the 1stopposite party who is the manufacturer through toll free customer care centre and the 1st opposite party sent their technician and found the supply of electricity could not withstand hence he exchanged with a Premier 4kv Double Booster stabilizer on 2.6.2010 and despite changing of this Double Booster Stabilizer it was not functioning properly. Again the complainant informed the opposite party-1 with legal notice on 14.6.2010 and the 1st opposite party’s technician attended on 15.6.2010 and confirmed the outdoor unit was faulty and required replacement. Hence took back the said unit to the service centre and found there was a compressor problem and replaced the compressor, after attending to the service returned and refitted the said unit on 16.2.2012 again the performance of the unit was still being bad the complainant again approached the opposite party and detected the outdoor unit was short of gas and gas had to be topped up and further on 25.6.2012 the pipe line insulation was untaken by the opposite party-1 but the unit was still giving the problem when he brought to the notice to the opposite party they had not bothered to rectify the defect. Hence the complaint lodged in this forum by claiming replacement the air conditioner with new one and seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for litigation charges.
8. Though the notices have served to the opposite parties concerned since the opposite party-2 has not responded it was treated as exparte on 7.6.2011. Further the 1st opposite party filed written version but subsequently not filed proof affidavit. Hence evidence of opposite party-1 closed.
9. The opposite party-1 had not disputed about the defects cited by the complainant in this compliant and he too attended the complaints and frequency of complaint was continuously happening though as per the detective of the opposite party-1 the complainant replaced the double booster and insulation were duly fitted and the power supplies duly checked in and contended that they have deputed the service engineer immediately after the receipt of the call from the complainant and they said the present complaint filed alleging deficiency of service is absolutely and abuse of purpose of law. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed in limini.
10. In pursuant of the documents filed by the complainant, written version filed the 1st opposite party it is proved that the complainant purchased the said Split 1.2 ton Hitachi Air conditioner for a sum of Rs.30,780/- from the 2nd opposite party on 14.10.2009 under Ex.A1 the double booster stabilizer on 2.6.2010 in Ex.A2 on 15.6.2010 the opposite party inspected and gave a report Ex.A3 to replace the compressor, on 16.6.2010 Ex.A4 the opposite party took back the A/c unit for check up on 24.6.2010 the opposite party informed short of gas and which has to be topped up in Ex.A5. 25.6.2010 pipeline insulated. Inspite of all this attendance by the opposite party the unit was not functioning hence the complainant approached the opposite party where he had failed to rectify the defects found in the unit permanently. The opposite party-2 inspite of receiving the notice he has not bothered to come forward to rectify the defects since the consideration of Rs.30,780/- was received by him and he failed to give his version and appearance before this forum deems to be failure on the part of the opposite party-2 which is against the law. The opposite party-1 though they had responded but they never came forward before this forum after filing their written version and failed to submit the proof affidavit and oral arguments. Considering the dereliction of the responsibility of opposite parties 1 & 2 they are jointly and severally responsible for the loss incurred to the complainant.
11. Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the similar model 1.2 ton Hitachi Air Conditioner with warranties applicable for a brand new unit on surrender of the defective complaint mentioned Air conditioner by the complainant, if similar model is not available the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.30780/- (Rupees Thirty thousand seven hundred and eighty only) being the cost of the unit as alternative and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant and as such the points 1 & 2 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the similar model 1.2 ton Hitachi Air Conditioner with warranties applicable to a brand new Air conditioner Unit on surrender of the defective complaint mentioned Air conditioner by the complainant, if similar model is not available the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.30780/- (Rupees Thirty thousand seven hundred and eighty only) being the cost of the unit as alternative and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above said cost of the unit will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23d day of March 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 14.10.2009 - Copy of invoice.
Ex.A2- 2.6.2010 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.A3- 15.6.2010 - Copy of Call report.
Ex.A4- - - Copy of call report.
Ex.A5- - - Copy of call report.
Ex.A6- 25.6.2010 - Copy of Call report.
Ex.A7- 14.6.2010 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A8- 16.6.2010 - Copy of Ack. Card.
Ex.A9- 24.6.2010 - Copy of Ack. Card.
Ex.A10- - - Copy of Warranty Card.
Opposite parties’ side documents: .. Nil..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
