Orissa

Cuttak

CC/141/2014

Pinaki Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,M/s Raj Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

01 Aug 2015

ORDER

          OFFICE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM:CUTTACK.

                                                                      C.C. No.141 of 2014

Pinaki Dutta,

Res. of At:Netaji Nagar,PO:Tulsipur,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                              … Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.         M/s. Raj Electronics,Cuttack Branch,

       Royal Towar,Madhupatna,

Town/Dist:Cuttack., represented by its Proprietor.

 

2.       Branch Manager,

      HITACHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) Ltd.

N-4/37,I.R.Village,Nayapalli,Bhubaneswar.

Managing Director,

HITACHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) Ltd.,

Hitachi Complex,Karan Nagar,Kadi,

Dist:Mehesana,Gujarat,India.                                           ….Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri B.K.Das,President.

 Sri B.K.Padhiary,Member.

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. A.K.Samal & Associates.

For the O.P No.2 & 3:                  Mr. P.Pattnaik & Associates.

 

Date of filing:  20.05.2014

Date of Order: 18.02.2015

 

                                                                                                JUDGMENT

                                                                                

Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of selling of a defective A.C having manufacturing defects are the allegations arrayed against O.Ps.

1. Complaint in brief reveals complainant had purchased one HITACHI AC SPLIT 1.5 T C.O (RAU518 HTD) from O.P No.1 dealer on 1.5.2013.  The said C.C was installed in the residence of complainant on 5/.5.13 by staff of the O.Ps 1 & 2.  A few days later i.e. on 27.5.13 complainant found low cooling on the said C.C, when the complaint was made, ,O.P No.2 attend and provided the service, on which complainant was not satisfied.  On 23.8.13 the A.C suffered break down problem, when complained, the staff of O.P No.2 attended the service but could not rectified the defects fully.  Thereafter the A.C was completely non-functional on 4.3.2014.   Thereafter the A.C shown defects in different intervals with separate types of defects which could not be rectified in spite of efforts made by the staffs of the O.Ps.  Complainant being harassed issued a legal notice to O.P No.1 & 3 calling them to immediate replace of the defective A.C by a new one or refund the cost of the A.C with 12% interest.  But the O.Ps paid a deaf ear to the same, finding no other alternative, complainant approached this Forum with prayer that a direction may be given to the O.Ps to refund the cost of the A.C to the tune of Rs.41,000/- along with 16% interest from the date of purchase of the A.C and Rs.25m000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation.
2. Though notice was served through registered post with A.D, O.Ps appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version into the dispute raising the question of maintainability, it is stated that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty the courts in Ahmadabad has exclusive the jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and denied the allegations arrayed against this O.Ps.  Coming into facts of the dispute it is averred that complainant purchased one 1.5 T C.O RAU 518HTD A.C from O.P No.1 dealer, which was installed on 5.5.13.  Further whenever any minor complaint is made by the complainant service and rectification was immediately carried out i.e. on 24.5.13, 5.12.13, 4.3.14 and on 28.4.14.  The problem occurred on the said C.C on 12.9.14 is not manufacturing defect but a problem which is capable of being resolved.  Further on the para-wise reply it is stated that whatever defects occurred on the said A.C like low cooling, water leakage  breakdown were not manufacturing defects but lack of operational knowledge without following the procedure mentioned in the warranty book and the O.Ps service centre(HCS) has always provided prompt and effective service. In the circumstances the complaint as devoid of any merit are likely to be dismissed with cost.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.  The purchase and installation of the said A.C is not disputed.  During course of argument learned counsel for the complainant filed an affidavit along with an E.Mail copy and memo.  The memo and the affidavit reveals that O.Ps 2 & 3, the manufacturing company by sending an E.Mail to the complainant opined that they are ready to change the entire unit(A.C) without any further warranty on new unit which is accepted by the complainant .  In the circumstances, when the O.Ps are agreed to replace the A.C. prior to order of this Forum, no compensation is imposed on them.

Hence, considering the affdavit,memo and to end the dispute, we direct the O.Ps 1,2 & 3 to install a new A.C.(entire unit) of same model of same price at the residence of the complainant within 30 days of this order, failing which Rs.100/- will be charged per day for the delayed period.  No order as to cost.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the open Court on this the 1^st day of August, 2015 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                           (Sri B.K.Das)

                                                                                                                            President.

 

                                                                                                                          (Sri B.K.Padhiary)

                                                                                                                            Member.