Haryana

Kaithal

CC/159/2022

Sahab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neha T.V Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Janpal Singh

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.159/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 15.06.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:01.09.2023.

Sahab Singh S/o Tara Singh, r/o near Gurudwara, Village Dussain, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Neha T.V.Centre, Shop No.69-B, Anaj Mandi, Pundri (136026), District Kaithal through its Proprietor.
2. Thermocool Engineers Corporation, R/o Patel Bazar, Behind Aggarwal Dharamshalla, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
3. Johnson Control-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited, Head Office/Works Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, Distt. Mehsana-384440, Gujarat, India.
4. Johnson Control-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited, Corporate Office, 905-908, 9^th Floor, JMD Regent Square, Block K, DLF City, Phase-2, M.G. Road, Gurugram-122001, Haryana.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Janpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OPs.No.3 & 4.

                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Sahab Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a Hitachi 1.5 Ton Split Air Conditioner from Op No.1 for the sum of Rs.35,500/- vide invoice No.5214 dt. 16.06.2021 against the warranty of 1 year and 9 year warranty of compressor.  The case of complainant is that the said A.C. was not functioning properly from the very beginning and seems to be manufacturing defect in the said article as exists unnecessary leakage of water and not giving required cooling, swing system not functioning properly, mode was defective, giving heavy and unbearable noise and also seems to be installed in defective way by mechanic of Ops as wall on which said A.C. was installed has been damaged, whereas the complainant had already left the space for installment of split AC with proper fittings.  The complainant made representations to the OPs on 02.06.2022 vide complaint No.22060205384 and on 07.06.2022 vide complaint No.2260101165 and requested them to remove the defects from the said A.C. or to replace the same with the new one but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.          Upon notice, the OPs No.3 & 4 appeared before this Commission, whereas OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 12.09.2022 passed by this Commission.   OPs No.3 & 4 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that when the complainant approached the OPs No.3 & 4 with some issue in regards to the said product, the technician on behalf of the OPs No.3 & 4 duly visited the premises of complainant and inspected the said product and resolved the issue of the complainant.  It is further submitted that the complainant is alleging in his complaint that the said product would have some manufacturing defect, however, if the said product would have a manufacturing defect, the OPs No.3 & 4 would have faced a huge number of complaint for machines manufactured in that particular batch.  But the OPs did not receive any such complaints from any other customers.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith document Annexure-C1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs No.3 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-A and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a Hitachi 1.5 Ton Split Air Conditioner from Op No.1 for the sum of Rs.35,500/- vide invoice No.5214 dt. 16.06.2021 against the warranty of 1 year and 9 year warranty of compressor.  It is further argued that the said A.C. was not functioning properly from the very beginning and seems to be manufacturing defect in the said article as exists unnecessary leakage of water and not giving required cooling, swing system not functioning properly, mode was defective, giving heavy and unbearable noise and also seems to be installed in defective way by mechanic of Ops as wall on which said A.C. was installed has been damaged, whereas the complainant had already left the space for installment of split AC with proper fittings.  The complainant made representations to the OPs on 02.06.2022 vide complaint No.22060205384 and on 07.06.2022 vide complaint No.2260101165 and requested them to remove the defects from the said A.C. or to replace the same with the new one but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the case law titled as M/s. Daikin Air-conditioning India Vs. Mandeep Kaur decided by Hon’ble State Commission on 25.03.2015 bearing first appeal No.58 of 2015.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 has argued that when the complainant approached the OPs No.3 & 4 with some issue in regards to the said product, the technician on behalf of the OPs No.3 & 4 duly visited the premises of complainant and inspected the said product and resolved the issue of the complainant.  It is further argued that the complainant is alleging in his complaint that the said product would have some manufacturing defect, however, if the said product would have a manufacturing defect, the OPs No.3 & 4 would have faced a huge number of complaint for machines manufactured in that particular batch.  But the OPs did not receive any such complaints from any other customers.  Ld. counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Ram Singh Vs. Kunal TVS Auto Centre 2017(3) CPR 488 decided by Hon’ble National Commission; Bhagwan Singh Shekhawat Vs. M/s. R.K.Photostat & Communication 2017(2) CPJ 462 decided by Hon’ble National Commission and Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store decided by Hon’ble State Commission on 28.05.2014 bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014.   

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The main contention of complainant is that the said AC was having manufacturing defect but he has failed to produce on file any report of expert/engineer which could prove that the said AC was having any manufacturing defect.  Moreover, the complainant has also not moved any application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for taking expert opinion to see the defect in the aforesaid AC.  It is also clear from the pleadings of complaint that the AC in question was purchased by the complainant on 16.06.2019 and the same stopped work due to fault.  The complainant made first complaint on 02.06.2022 vide complaint No.22060205384 which means that the complainant has used the said AC about one year, so, he is not entitled for refund of amount of the A.C. in question.

10.            Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we direct the Ops jointly and severally to repair the said A.C. and to replace the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant within 30 days from today.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony as-well-as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted partly accordingly.  The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 are not distinguishable but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.     

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs- respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:01.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.