Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/92

Rajni Khullar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raipur Electronic Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Sethi

15 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:92 dated 11.02.2019.                                                 Date of decision: 15.09.2021. 

Rajni Khullar 47 years w/o. Prem Kumar Khullar, R/o.503, Maya Mohalla Lakkar Bazar-141001, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-307-4167, Beantpura, Hargobind Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.
2.  Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., a Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning Company, Shop No.TF 301, 3rd Floor, DMRC Building, New Ashok Nagar, Metro Station, New Delhi-110096 through authorized signatory.       
3. Hitachi Home & Life Solution India Limited, SCF 4, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, adjoining Hotel Silver Stone, near Libra Bus Service Centre, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.      

…..Opposite parties

                   Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is she purchased one Hitachi refrigerator model No.R-S700PND2 from OP1 for a sum of Rs.78,000/- vide invoice No.CRP/SA1819/00380 dated 03.05.2018. After the installation of the refrigerator, the complainant noticed that it was not cooling properly. In this regard, various complaints were lodged with the OPs, but they failed to rectify the defect though PCP of the refrigerator was changed many times. On 26.12.2018, the complainant lodged a fresh complaint with the OPs through their helpline number following which the officials of service centre at Ludhiana visited the house of the complainant on many occasions and inspected the refrigerator, but the defect could not be rectified. The concerned visiting official stated that some parts were required which were not available or sent by the head office and therefore, the refrigerator would be replaced soon. However, till date the refrigerator has not been replaced and is lying in non working condition. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a number of complaints with the Ops and also sent email dated 05.01.2019 in response to which, reply was received whereby the complainant was assured that his grievance would be redressed within shortest possible time, but no action was taken. The OPs vide email dated 18.01.2019 admitted that they had received the complaint on 26.12.2018 regarding cooling issue and their service centre had attended the complaints and found that PCP was defective which was required to be replaced, but they refused the replacement invoking terms and conditions of the warranty. As a matter of fact, the OPs avoided their liability and responsibility and even after changing PCP or PCB on many occasions, failed to restore the refrigerator into a proper working condition. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the cost of Rs.78,000/- or the refrigerator along with interest @15% per annum and compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.55,500/-.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP1 to OP3 who did not appear in the court despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.06.2019. However, subsequently, OP2 and OP3 appeared through counsel and filed an application for setting aside exparte proceedings whereby OP2 and OP3 were permitted to join the proceedings. However, no written statement has been filed on behalf of OP2 and OP3.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA1 along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C22 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

5.                The case of the complainant is that after the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 03.05.2018, it started problem with regard to cooling regarding which the complaints were lodged with the OPs from time to time, but the OPs failed to remove the defects and repaired the same. The complainant has further placed on record complaints sent vide emails Ex. C2to Ex. C10 and Ex. C12 to Ex. C17. The OPs responded through email Ex. C11 dated 18.01.2019 mentioning that the PVB was reported to be defective by the service centre at Ludhiana, but the complainant did not allow the repair and requested for replacement, which is not possible. In the email Ex. C18 dated 25.01.2019, the OPs have further responded that the concerned service centre will get back to the complainant soon for the dissolution of the complaint on priority. Apart from her affidavit and documents placed on record, the complainant has not lead any other evidence to prove that there was some inherent manufacturing defect in the refrigerator which could not have been rectified despite repair. It has been claimed by the complainant that the refrigerator carried a warranty of one year. The complainant has not been able to refer to any warranty terms and conditions which make the complainant entitled for replacement of the product. Even otherwise, the replacement of a product can be ordered only if it is cogently proved that the product is suffering from such a defect from its very beginning which cannot be repaired or rectified. Apart from that the complainant has not examined any expert witness or an engineer to prove that there was some irreparable defect in the product.

6.                In the email Ex. C11 dated 18.01.2019, the OPs have admitted that the PCB was defective and the same should be replaced, but the same has not been replaced till date. In these circumstances, to that extent there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to repair the product with regard to replacement of PCB or any other defect for that matter. Since there has been an acute delay in the repair of the product, the OPs can be burdened with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall carry out the repair of the refrigerator in question with regard to PCB or any other issue at their own costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and shall also pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.09.2021.

Gobind Ram.