BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 451 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 8.8.2019
Date of Decision : 09.05.2022.
Anju Nagpal, aged 49 years wife of Shri Narender Nagpal, resident of House No.508, Part-2, HUDA, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Punjab Radio Co., Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Proprietor.
2. Ludhiana Refrigeration, Opp. Namdhari Gurudwara, Suratgarhia Bazar, Sirsa, through its owner/ authorized person.
3. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Limited, 301, Third Floor, DMRC Building, New Ashok Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi- 110 196, through its Manager/ authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Puneet Narang, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Opposite parties no.1 & 2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that on 26.04.2019 complainant had purchased one air conditioner of Hitachi company Model 318EADA from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.36,000/- vide invoice No.250 dated 26.4.2019. The said air conditioner is manufactured by op no.3. The op no.1 assured about its good quality and performance and gave 1+4 years warranty against all manufacturing defects in the air conditioner and op no.1 got installed the same at the premises of complainant. It is further averred that in the month of July, 2019, the said air conditioner stopped giving cooling upon which complainant reported the matter to op no. on 4.7.2019 whereupon op no.1 sent the mechanic/ engineer who checked the said air conditioner but he could not find fault in the air conditioner. Thereafter, on 5.7.2019, 11.7.2019, 13.7.2019, 15.7.2019 and on 18.7.2019 complainant also lodged complaints on toll free number and through emails with ops but ops have failed to do anything in the matter. The said air conditioner is still in defective condition and is not giving proper cooling and there is manufacturing defect in the air conditioner and same is not repairable and requires full replacement. That complainant has approached the ops many times and requested them to either replace the above said air conditioner with a new one or to make refund of its price to him, but they did not pay any heed to the same and the act and conduct of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 failed to appear despite service. Op no.2 refused to accept the notice. As such ops no.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
3. Op no.3 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that product in question carries a warranty for a period of one year. The company may only repair the product in warranty period and in case the warranty period is expired or the warranty is void, then the product can only be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the customer/ complainant. It is further submitted that upon receipt of complaint of complainant, the Technical Team duly visited to complainant’s house on 4.7.2019 and examined the product by performing requisite tests. All the parameters were checked in presence of complainant. Whenever the complainant had requested for service, the op no.3 always took up the service request with utmost priority. However, the complainant declined to acknowledge the same or to sign any job sheet without stating any concrete reasons thereof. Thereafter, performing all requisite tests, the Technical Team ascertains that the air conditioner is functioning to exquisitely and same has also been informed to the complainant. Moreover, for further satisfaction of complainant, the Technical Team had again inspected the air conditioner on 18.07.2019 and also advised the complainant to change the placing/ installed area of the said air conditioner to gain maximum benefit from the product. Further more, complainant has not attached any documentary evidence or expert opinion in support of her specific averments made in present complaint. The op no.3 is still ready to resolve the issue, if any as per the warranty policy. It is further submitted that complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product in question nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is established against op no.3. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice dated 26.4.2019 Ex.C1, copies of text messages as well as emails Ex.C2 to Ex.C10, photographs Ex.C11, Ex.C12 and copy of warranty details Ex.C13.
5. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Mohamad Afzal Vohra, Authroized Representative as Ex.RW1/A, copy of terms and conditions of warranty Ex.R1 and copies of job sheets dated 4.7.2019 and 8.7.2019 Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.3 and have perused the case file.
7. The perusal of Tax Invoice Ex.C1 reveals that on 26.4.2019 complainant purchased the air conditioner in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. From the copies of text messages, various emails of complainant and ops produced on record by complainant as Ex.C2 to Ex.C10, it is evident that in the month of July, 2019 i.e. within two/ three months complainant lodged various complaints to the ops regarding issue of no cooling of air conditioner in question. The ops have also placed on file copies of job sheets dated 4.7.2019 and 18.7.2019 Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and the perusal of the same also reveals that problem of No Cooling has been reported by the complainant to the ops but op no.3 has not placed on file any document to prove that issue of No Cooling in the air conditioner has been resolved by it or that there is no manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. The op no.3 manufacturing company who has team of technical experts/ engineers has failed to prove on record by placing any expert report that air conditioner is not having any defect. The op no.3 has also failed to prove its defence plea by leading cogent and convincing evidence by way of any expert opinion. The op no.1 who is seller of air conditioner and op no.2 service centre of op no.3 have failed to appear before this Commission and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So, it is proved on record that defect in the air conditioner could not be removed out by expert mechanic of op no.3 even after inspection/ repairs for two times and as such air conditioner in question is not repairable. The ops are therefore liable to either replace the air conditioner with a new one of same make and model or to make refund of the price of the air conditioner in question to the complainant.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make replacement of the air conditioner in question with a new one of same make and model or to make refund of the amount of Rs.36,000/- i.e. price of the air conditioner in question to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which ops will be liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.36,000/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 09.05.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
(JK)
