BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 205 of 2016                                                                         

                                                            Date of Institution         :    26.8.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    7.9.2017.

Dr. Sandeep Sihag, C/o Bombay Hospital, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Rama Electronics, Old Sabji Mandi, Sirsa, through its Prop. Owner (authorized dealer of Hitachi Air Conditioner).

2. Hitachi, A-15, Mohan Co-op, Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its authorized persons/ responsible person.

3. Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi, District Mehsana- 382727 (Gujrat) (Manufacturing company) through its Authorized person/ responsible person (or the proper address of the company to be supplied by ops No.1 & 2).

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

     SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

               SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Sanjay Mehta,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Opposite parties No.2 and 3 exparte.

                   Opposite party no.4 exparte.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is a doctor by profession and is running a hospital under the name and style of Bombay Hospital, Dabwali road, Sirsa. The complainant had purchased five ACs from op no.1 on 2.7.2015 against a sum of Rs.4,32,154/- vide bill no.1280 to install in ICU as well as in emergency room and OPD room etc. The complainant purchased the above said ACs to install in hospital for patients welfare and need on every type of assurances given by op no.1 but after three months no service was done by the company as promised and even before the start of the summer season no service was done. The complainant approached Rama Electronics on 20.4.2016 for service of ACs but no satisfactory reply was given. That after waiting for 10-15 days, in first week of May, 2016 the complainant started AC 7.5 tone ductable which was installed in ICU but above AC was not giving sufficient cooling and consuming extra electricity, so the complainant on 10.5.2016 again approached the op no.1 but to no effect and complainant approached the service centre through toll free number but reply was that the complaint is cancelled due to not traceable/ service already done on 1.6.2016 and even the complainant has received these type of fake messages. That thereafter the complainant called on their authorized service centre and talked with Mr. Kirpal from Ahamdabad and he assured that his complaint will be resolved at the earliest possible but to no effect. That due to above said defects in the AC and non functioning thereof, the complainant has suffered much financial loss and irreparable loss as well as harassment. The AC is now lying as waste machinery in the hospital of complainant and it cannot be ruled out that ops no.2 and 3 in collusion with op no.1 had supplied the second hand ACs. The complainant also got served legal notice upon ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and in the reply while denying the contents of the complaint, it is submitted that complainant never approached op no.1 firm for service of ACs purchased. The complainant had purchased AC on 2.7.2015 and according to version given in the complaint, he approached op no.1 in April, 2016 which means the complainant did not use the ACs for complete 10 months. All other contents of complaint have also been denied.

3.                Ops no.2 and 3 did not appear despite notices and were proceeded against exparte.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant made a statement that complaint be read as evidence of complainant and also tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant had purchased five ACs for a consideration of Rs.4,32,154/- and out of which one AC of 7.5 tons was installed in ICU which was not giving sufficient cooling and consuming extra electricity and complainant lodged complaint with ops several times and also called at service centre of the company, but, however, ops did not give any heed to the requests of complainant and complainant is entitled for replacement of the AC in question and also for the refund of the amount of all the ACs.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has strongly contended that no doubt ACs were purchased form op no.1 but complainant got installed the ACs from his own person and there may be negligence on the part of person who installed the AC in the ICU otherwise ACs of hitachi company are complaint free and give proper cooling. The allegations of the complainant are totally baseless. The complainant never approached the op for any alleged defect in the ACs nor the op ever refused to provide any service.

8.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. The purchase of air conditioners by complainant from op no.1 is an undisputed fact between the parties. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that complainant never approached the op no.1 with the complaint that AC of the complainant is not giving proper cooling nor op has ever refused to provide any service. Learned counsel for complainant has stated at bar that he does not press for any relief of replacement of AC if ops are ready to provide service and to repair the AC and then he has no objection if orders are passed for repair of the AC. Learned counsel for op no.1 has also stated at bar that they are ready to repair the AC in question.

9.                In view of above, we allow the present complaint and opposite parties are directed to send their technical expert at the place of hospital of complainant and to inspect and carry out the necessary repairs in the AC installed in ICU of the hospital even by replacement of any part of the AC or by filling gas in the AC without any cost to the satisfaction of complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the AC is not repairable due to any manufacturing defect, the ops shall be liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model. The ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied with by all the ops jointly and severally. 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:07.09.2017.                          Member                  Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.