Haryana

Ambala

CC/339/2022

GULSHAN KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELAINCE RETAIL LTD.(RETAIL DIGITAL) - Opp.Party(s)

AMAN KUMAR.

13 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	339 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	05.09.2022
Date of decision	:	13.05.2024

 

Gulshan Kumar @ Sanjay Kocchar S/o Sh. Manohar Lal R/o 404, 1988/2 Kaziwara Nahan House, Ambala City.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Reliance Retail Ltd. (Reliance Digital) Sangeetha Hights 13 &14, Manali House Prem Nagar Ambala City through its Manager.
2. Hitachi Air Conditioner India Ltd. Having head office at Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi, District Mehsana-382727, Gujrat, India.
3. Hitachi Air Conditioner India Ltd. Having regional office at 301, 3rd Floor, DMRC building, New Ashok Nagar, Metro Station, New Delhi-110096.

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     Shri Vivek Sagar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                                 Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.                                                                                                                                     Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 and 3.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to replace the air conditioner with the new one and to pay the damages for the inconvenience, financial lose, discomfort and physical and mental agony faced by the complainant or to refund the money paid by complainant as per invoice along with prevailing commercial rate of interest in market and the legal fee paid by the complainant or grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Hitachi Invertos Air Conditioner from OP No.1 on 12.04.2022 vide invoice/tech expert ID No.60729457 and get it installed. After few days of installation the Air Conditioner it stopped working in the peak summer season of June 2022. The complainant lodged complaint with OP No.1 as well as telephonically informed OPs No.2 and 3 on 31.07.2022. The representative of the OP No.2 (manufacturer of the air conditioner) came and informed that its electrical part (PCB) is damaged which would be replaced within three days. He took parts of the air conditioner with them on 31.07.2022 and unfitted the front unit of the split air conditioner. Thereafter, the complainant contact OP No.1 to fit the air conditioner on the third day but it did not give any satisfactory reply to complainant. After 26-08-2022 the technician of the OPs no.2 and 3 came to check the air conditioner again and told that not only the PCB of the air conditioner but the fan motor and cooling chain of the air conditioner is also defective and they left the air conditioner as it is and told that it will take a one month for parts to be replaced in the air conditioner and went away with parts of the air conditioner. The complainant asked the OPs to provide an alternative air conditioner to use but they refused to do so. The complainant and his family was compelled to sleep without air conditioner even after spending a huge amount of Rs.37,204/-. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version  wherein it took various objections to the effect that the present complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit; the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands;  the present complaint is not maintainable against OP No.1; OP No.1 who is a dealer to sell the product has no concern what so ever about the after sale service during warrantee period; the manufacturer has its own vast service network, which has been providing the best possible services to the customers whenever and where ever they are approached for the job; the present complaint is without any cause of action; the complainant has tried to manipulate the facts for imposing this false and frivolous complaint etc. On merits, it has been stated that a new air conditioner was purchased by the complainant on 11.04.2022 at 8.00 PM which was installed on the next day on 12.04.2022 at 11.52 AM at the premises of the complainant and he was also given live demonstration about the functioning and features of the said AC by the company engineers to his entire satisfaction. The said AC was then used by the complainant extensively with no defect therein till the end of July. OPs no.2 & 3 (manufacturer of the product) were only liable to get the air conditioner repaired for the fault generated in the power supply of the AC due to its extensive use/improper handling and fluctuation etc, which required some time for the required parts to be replaced but since the complainant was not ready to accommodate so he contacted OP  No.1 in the last of August, 2022 and informed about the said fault upon which OP  No.1 in order to keep its reputation of best seller, immediately approached OPs no. 2 & 3 for the Immediate repair of his AC. The service centre of the OP no. 2 & 3 got rectified the initial fault but since not satisfied with the upto mark functioning, so sought some more time to arrange the new parts, which were to come from Gujrat. Since the complainant was adamant on his uncalled demand of replacement with new AC which was not possible for want of said parts, so OP No.1 by going out of way just to satisfy the complainant, immediately took approval from its higher office for the replacement of said AC with new one at its own level without even informing the OP no. 2 & 3 and got the new AC installed from its own stock at the premises of the complainant on 08.09.2022. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 and 3 appeared and filed written version wherein it has been stated that the complainant has not placed on record any evidence to prove his case; this complaint is an abuse of law; this complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission etc. On merits, it has been stated that a sealed boxed with AC in question was delivered to the complainant upto his full satisfaction, which carried a warranty of one year and five years for the compressor. When the complainant approached service centre of the OPs No.2 and 3 qua defect in the AC in question, it was resolved upto his satisfaction. There was no manufacturing defect in the said AC. As per terms and conditions of the warranty, only repair was to be done, in case the AC was found defective. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs No.2 and 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Manoj Kumar, Authorized Signatory of OP No.1-Company-Reliance Digital, Manali House, Ambala City as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 tendered affidavit of Mohamad Afzal Vohra, Authorized Representative of OPs No.2 and 3 Company- M/s Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. (formerly known as Hitachi Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. having its Registered Office at 9^th Floor, Abhijeet-1, Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmadabad, Gujarat-380006 presently at New Delhi as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith document as Annexure OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither rectifying defects in the AC in question despite the fact that it occurred during warranty period nor refunding the amount paid towards the AC in question, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.
8.           Learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that OP no. 2 & 3 (manufacturer of the product) were only liable to get the air conditioner repaired for the fault generated in the power supply of the AC due to its extensive use/improper handling and fluctuation etc. which required some time for the required parts to be replaced. Complainant contacted the OP No.1 in the last week of August, 2022 and informed about the said fault, upon which OP No.1 in order to keep its reputation of best seller, immediately approached OPs no.2 & 3 for the Immediate repair of his AC. He further submitted that the service centre of the OP no.2 & 3 got rectified the initial fault but since not satisfied with the upto mark functioning, so sought some more time to arrange the new parts, which were to come from Gujrat. He further submitted that the since the complainant was adamant on his uncalled demand of replacement with new one AC which was not possible for want of said parts, so OP No.1 by going out of way just to satisfy the complainant, immediately took approval from its higher office, for the replacement of said AC with new one at its own level without even informing the OP no. 2 & 3 and got the new AC installed from its own stock at the premises of the complainant on 08.09.2022.
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 and 3 while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that AC in question was delivered in a sealed box to the complainant upto his full satisfaction, which carried a warranty of one year and five years for the compressor. He further submitted that when the complainant approached service centre of the OPs qua defect in the AC in question, it was resolved upto his satisfaction. He further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the said AC. As per terms and conditions of the warranty, only repair was to be done, in case the AC was found defective.
10.           Neither the fact regarding purchase of the AC in question from OP No.1  (manufactured by OPs No.2 and 3) by the complainant vide tax invoice, Annexure C-1 nor the fact that the said AC started giving troubles within the warranty period as a result of which the OPs tried to rectify the defects therein but could not  succeed for want of spare parts are not in dispute, as such, the only moot question which needs to be decided by this Commission is, as to whether, the complainant is  entitled for any relief in this case or not.  It is significant to mention here that the complainant has filed this complaint on 05.09.2022.  The OPs have replaced the defective AC with a new one and delivered the same to the complainant on 09.09.2022 at his residence, vide tax invoice dated 09.09.2022, Annexure OP-4 i.e. during pendency of this complaint.  Had the OPs replaced the AC in question well in time then the complainant would have escaped from entering into this unnecessary litigation, which has definitely caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss as he has to hire the services of the Advocate for the same. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the OPs shall pay lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/-, as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him and litigation expenses. 
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severally, to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which said amount shall carry interest @8% p.a. from the date of default, till realization. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room

  Announced:- 13.05.2024

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President