Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/60/2019

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance retail limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sanjeev Abrol

02 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                    COMMISSION

                                FATEHGARH SAHIB

 

Complaint No.	:	CC/60 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	17/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2023

 

Hardeep Singh , aged about 28 years , son of Sh. Jaspal Singh , resident of Village Noorpura , Tehsil  Amloh  and Distrcit Fatehgarh Sahib. 

1.  

 

1. Reliance retail Ltd. , Reliance Dx Mini , 2600 Mathura Dass Street Post Office Road Sirhind  Fatehgarh Sahib, through its proprietor/authorized person.
2.  Reliance retail Ltd., C-135 aphase VIII Industrial Focal Point SAS Nagar Mohali 160071 through its proprietor/authorized Person.
3. Johnson controls Hitachi- Air Conditioning India Ltd. , Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi Distt.  Mehsana -382727 Gujrat India, through its MD/Authorized Person.

 

                                                                              ..………....... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14  of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)

Quorum

Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava,  Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Present: Sh.Sanjeev Abrol, counsel for complainant .

              OP  no.1 Ex-Parte vide order dated 29.10.2019

              OP no.2 Ex-Parte vide order dated  18.11.2019

     None for OP no.3.

    

            The complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties)  under Section 11 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act-1986(old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer to give directions to the OPs to pay  amount Rs.34,210.30/- the cost  of air conditioner along with interest @ 24% P.A, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant .

1.  The complainant had purchased one  Hitachi Air Conditioner  (1.5 Ton, 5 star double blower), Model RAV518HUD, worth Rs.34210.30/- from the OP no.1 on 8.4.2019.  It was assured by the OPs that in case of any defect , the  said Air conditioner shall be replaced with the new one.  The OPs have given guarantee of one year in  respect of said Hitachi Air Conditioner  and guarantee of 10 years in respect of compressor of the above said Air Conditioner.  The complainant installed AC at his home . On the same day , after the installation the complainant noted that the said AC was  not producing the required cooling  as per its capacity and on same date i.e. 15.4.2019  , the complainant informed the OP no.1 about the defective Air Conditioner.  Despite that the technician of the Company never visited the complainant to check the defect.   On 1.6.2019  , complainant again registered the complaint by calling the customer care no 1800-103-1044 and 8028121105  complaint number was assigned to the complainant. On   14.7.2019  , a technician came to the house of the complainant to check the Air Conditioner  and after checking the air Conditioner the technician told the complainant that the Air Conditioner can not be repaired and it will be replaced only with new one.  Despite so many  requests , the OPs  failed to replace the above said  Air Conditioner with new one. Hence this complaint.
2.    Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs  through registered Post.  OP no.3  appeared through  his counsel and filed written version. OPs no.1and 2 did not appear despite service of summons . OP no.1 was proceeded against Ex- Parte vide order dated 29.10.2019  and 2  was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 18.11.2019
3. The complaint has been contested by the OP no.3   & filed written version by raising Preliminary objection.  The  complainant had purchased a 1.5 Ton Hitachi Air Conditioner on 8.4.2019 for  a consideration of Rs.34,21`0.30/-  from  OP no.1 manufactured by the OP no.3. The OP no.3 stated that  the said product  carries a warranty for  period of one year  and  five years for the compressor.  As per the warranty policy , if there will be any issue/problem with the said product then the company will repair the same free of cost.  However in  the case of damage to the product , if any  of the terms and conditions of the warranty policy is violated or the warranty period is expired then the warranty policy  shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis  to be  paid by the customer.  The  complainant had failed to mention the room size wherein the product  was being installed . As  per the standard procedure after receiving , the complaint a technician on behalf of the OP no.3 was duly appointed to visit the complainant’s premises in order to conduct necessary services and  repair the said product  but in this case the complainant have never approached the OP no.3  for any issue with the said product.  The reliefs sought by the complainant  are clearly beyond the expressed terms and conditions of warranty.  The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product  in question  nor any deficiency in service on behalf of the Op no.3.  OPs prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost has been made.
4. In support of his complaint , complainant tendered in evidence Ex.C1 his affidavit, copies of documents i. e Ex.C2 tax  invoice , Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 call details , Ex.C6 E-mail dated 29.6.2019, Ex.C7 E-mail dated 18.7.2019, Ex.C8 E-mail dated 18.7.2019. In rebuttal , the OPs tendered  Ex.OP3/1 affidavit of Mohamand Afzal Vohra , Authorized Representative, Ex.OP3/2 warranty card and closed their evidence.
5. Heard. Entire record has been perused.
6. Admittedly , the complainant purchased Hitachi  Air Conditioner (1.5 Ton , 5 Star double blower ) , Model RAV518HUD,  for Rs.34, 210.30/- from the OP no.1 vide Ex.C2,  The main grouse of the complainant was that A.C started troubling of low cooling  on same day after  the installation.  The complainant lodged  number of complaints  with the OPs regarding the aforesaid defect vide Ex.C3to Ex.C8. The service engineers of OPs many  times tried to rectify the defects in the AC but they  could not find defect of low cooling                                  vide Ex.C5. OPs did not  lead any evidence to show that  there was not any manufacturing defect. OP no.3 is held liable for deficiency in service being the  manufacturer of the product.
7. As  a corollary of our above discussion and keeping in view of the facts of the present case,  present complaint is partly allowed.  The OP no.3, directed as under :-

[a] To refund theprice ofAir Conditioner i.e Rs.34,210.30/-to the complainant along with interest@ 9% P.A from the date of filing of complaint within 30 days, failing which interest @ 12% P.A. shall be payable. The complainant is directed to retun the Air Conditionerin hispossession to the OPs simultaneously.

        [b] To pay Rs.5000/- compensation for harassment and litigatin charges to the complainant. 

Compliance of the order be made by the OP no.3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the above said amount through legal process. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to pandemic of Covid-19 and paucity of staff. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be returned back District Commission  Mohali, for consignment.

      Pronounced 02 May 2023   

                                                                      (S.K. Aggarwal)

                                                                              President

                                                                    

 

                                                                            ( Shivani Bhargava )

                                                                                       Member

    

                                                                             ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )

                                                                                                                                Member