BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 162 of 2017
Date of Institution : 14.7.2017
Date of Decision : 25.1.2018.
Naveen Kumar son of Shri Mahaveer Prasad, resident of House No.11/370, Prem Gali, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Rama Electronics, Old Sabji Mandi, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge.
2. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Limited, 9th Floor, Abhijeet-1, Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad- 380006, India through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rishab Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one Hitachi Air Conditioner of 1.5 tones model Sr. No.150B50920 from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.1446 dated 12.8.2015 on payment of Rs.38,900/-. At that time, op no.1 had given guarantee of the above said air conditioner for a period of five years from its purchase i.e. 12.8.2015 to 11.8.2010. That after seven months of its purchase, when the complainant re-started the air conditioner in summer, it was not giving cooling. The complainant immediately registered a complaint and got it checked from dealer as well as Hitachi care and found that the compressor has no gas. As the AC was in guarantee period, so technician from Hitachi refilled the gas. It is further averred that thereafter again in the month of April, 2017, it had same problem and compressor was found without gas. So again complainant contacted op no.1 and got it checked by technician for any leakage but no leakage was found and he again refilled the gas by saying that full volume of gas was not filled by technician from Hitachi. Then the complainant contacted Hitachi care and technician stated that the fault is from local dealer or in the piece purchased from local dealer and asked for visiting charges and other repairing charges. The complainant is being harassed since its purchase and he is legally entitled for replacement of above said conditioner. The air conditioner is not working. The complainant approached and requested the ops many times to redress his grievance and even many applications were also sent to them but all in vain and no action has been taken by them. That the act and conduct of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that para no.2 of the complaint is wrong, incorrect hence denied. No complaint whatsoever was ever ledged by the complainant with the answering op. It is further submitted that on being contacted by the complainant in the month of April, 2017, the mechanic/ technician of the answering op visited the premises of complainant and inspected the air conditioner and it was found that the gas of the AC was to be refilled. Accordingly, the gas was refilled by the answering op free of cost and put the same into function. The product of the complainant is working properly and is in okay condition. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement asserted that said product carries a warranty for a period of one year, however the compressor carries a warranty for a period of five years. The complainant approached the op no.2 in the month of May, 2016 and reported some issues in the product. The op no.2 sent a company engineer to check the issue as the AC was still under the warranty period. The company engineer inspected the AC and found that the same was tripping so he refilled the gas in the AC, after fixing the problem the AC started working fine, hence the engineer left. Thereafter, the complainant again contacted op no.2 in the month of April 2017 that AC is not working properly and it was duly informed to the complainant that all the visits would be on chargeable basis as the warranty on the AC had expired. It is further submitted that all out of warranty calls/ complaints are on paid basis. It is further submitted that the op no.2 is still ready and willing to provide services if complainant is willing to pay visiting charges of op no.2. The reliefs sought by complainant in the present complaint are beyond the agreed terms and conditions of warranty and also outside the ambit of Section 14 (1) of the Act. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of e-mail Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3 and copy of complaint history Ex.C4, copy of application Ex.C5 and postal receipt Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Roopesh Jain, Authorized representative Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2 and copy of job sheet Ex.R3. OP no.1 produced affidavit Ex.RW4/A.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The perusal of the affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A reveals that he has specifically deposed that he had purchased one Hitachi Air Conditioner of 1.5 tones from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.1446 dated 12.8.2015 on payment of Rs.38,900/- with guarantee for a period of five years from its purchase i.e. 12.8.2015 to 11.8.2010 and op no.1 had assured that during the guarantee period all the defects shall be removed by the company free of costs and in case of manufacturing defect, the above said air conditioner shall be replaced with new one through company but after seven months of its purchase, when the complainant re-started the air conditioner in summer (May, 2016) it was not cooling. The complainant immediately registered a complaint and got it checked from dealer as well as Hitachi Care and found that compressor had no gas and technician from Hitachi refilled the Gas. Thereafter, again in the month of April, 2017, it had same problem and compressor was found without gas. So again complainant contacted op no.1 and got it checked by technician for any leakage but no leakage was found and technician again refilled the gas by saying that full volume of gas was not filled by technician from Hitachi but same is giving problem and not giving proper cooling.
7. Though during the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops have strongly contended that AC is installed in a big hall which is more than capacity of the strength of air conditioner and in order to get full cooling in the hall it needs a bigger size air conditioner to be installed but since complainant has not installed a big size air conditioner and he wants full cooling in a big hall with a small air conditioner which is not possible otherwise there is no defect in the air conditioner of the complainant. No doubt, the ops have not taken this plea in their written statements and the perusal of the copy of the job card reveals that complainant had been approaching the ops time and again with complaint that air conditioner is not working properly and there is leakage in the gas and as per version of the ops the gas been filled for twice. So it appears that there is some defect in the air conditioner and it is legal obligation of the ops to carry out the necessary repairs in the air conditioner and to make same defect free if it suffers from any defect.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the air conditioner of the complainant, if repair is required and to make it defect free without cost within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found by the engineer of the ops that air conditioner in question is not repairable, then the ops shall be liable to replace the air conditioner with a new one of same make and model within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.01.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
