Orissa

Debagarh

CC/33/2019

Rishi Kumar Goel, aged about 50 years, S/O-Late Premchand Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahadeb Distributors - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DEOGARH.

C.C.NO. 33/2019

Present-         Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Rishi Kumar Goel, aged about 50 Yrs,

S/O- Late Premchan Goel,

R/O.-Ward No-01,Near Daily Market.

P.O/P.S/Dist/-Deogarh,Orissa.                                                                           ….       Complainant.

                                                         Versus

1. Sahadeb Distributors,

          At-Bisra Road Rourkela,,

          Dist-Sundergarh, (Orissa)       

2. The Service Manager,

          Panda Techno Service,

         Authorised Service Centre

         Johnson Control, Hitachi AirConditioner Pvt. Ltd.,

         At-S.S.I Building,Padhanpara

         Dist-Sambalpur.

3. The Manufacturer,

    Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd,

    Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar, Kadi,

    Dist-Mehsana, State-Gujrat.                                                                    .…      Opposite Parties.

 

               Counsel for the parties :

               For the Complainant :                                        Nemo.

               For the Opposite Parties :                                 None.

 

DATE OF HEARING :06.11.2019, DATE OF ORDER : 13.11.2019

Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W)- Brief fact of this case is that the Complainant has purchased one Hitachi Inverter Split Ac from the O.P-1 on payment of Rs. 51,800/- including stabilizer. The said AC is warranted for 10 years on Compressor, 5 years on PCB and 2 years on Electrical parts from the date of purchase. The Complainant installed the A.C in the first week of July by the personnel of the O.P-2. During the course of use on dtd. 25.09.2018, the Complainant found some defects in the AC that there is no cooling inside the room as the outer unit of the AC was shut down automatically time to time. The Complainant made contact to the O.P-1 who sent the O.P-2 but after a long gap. He inspected and replaced the PCB of the AC but the defect was not removed. Again the Voltage Stabilizer, electric phase and service wire were changed with a doubt of voltage supply but the same problem persisted. The Complainant lodged his Complaint to O.P-2 three times but at the last time the service personnel came to the house of the Complainant and he confirmed that the PCB is damaged completely and replaced the same. But he ultimately suggested that there exists a manufacturing defect hence the problems could not be solved.

After getting several notice O.P-1 2& 3 remained silent so they are set ex-parte.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

 

From the above discussion and material available on the records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer as he has purchase an Inverter AC from the O.P-1. It is evident, from the record, referred to above, that the complainant lodged a number of complaints with the Opposite Parties, regarding the aforesaid defect(s), and the O.Ps have tried to solve the problems. The Service Engineers of the Opposite Parties many times tried to rectify the defects in the A.C but after repeated requests and visits, they failed to remove or rectify the defect(s) in the A.C. Moreover, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties is also writ large from the fact that the last service report dated 26.06.2019 , placed on record by the complainant,  showed the Outdoor Unit PCB  the A.C., in question, which was the actual problem, due to which, the A.C. did not give continuous cooling. It is observed from the fact that the Service Engineers of the Opposite Parties once changed the PCB and actual problem  which could not be identified by the Service Engineers, since lodging of the complaint on 05.07.2019, the Opposite Parties continued in repairing AC, which did not bring in the desired continuous cooling to the Complainant. It is, thus, proved that the Opposite Parties sold a defective product to the complainant and failed to remove the defects in the AC.  As per Opposite Parties No.2 there is a manufacturing defect in the PCB as well as in the A.C, he replaced the PCB , free of cost. We are of the considered view that the Technical Team of the Opposite Parties, which comprised the experts, in the field, did not have any idea as to why the A.C resulting in low cooling. The O.P-2 could not be able to ascertain the real problem for a considerable period of time ever since the lodging of the Complaint, and keep on changing part just to calm down the complainant. It is pertinent to note that when the A.C. was defective and the Opposite Parties themselves failed to cure the defect in the product, it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to get the same tested from the Laboratory, as the same (A.C.) was within the warranty period and it was not the duty of the complainant, who has to get the same tested from the Laboratory. It is clear that the A.C., in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects and for proving the inherent manufacturing defect(s) in the A.C., no expert evidence was required to be produced by the complainant. It may be stated here that Opposite Party No.3 is a well renowned company of high reputation and due to the problem in the high quality product; the complainant and his family were made to suffer and did not receive the cooling facility, which was the top most requirement in the peak months of summer. This matter has been well settled in the matter of M/S Daikin Airconditioning India ... vs Mandeep Kaur decided on 25 March, 2015 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Union territory, Chandigarh. We are of the considered view that such a defective product was sold by the Opposite Parties to the complainant, which itself proved a lot of harassment to him and his  family. So the O.P-1 & 3 has committed Deficiency in Service u/s 2(1)(g) and Unfair Trade Practice u/s 2(1)( r) to the Complainant according to the C.P Act-1986. Hence we order as under:-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1,2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective Air Conditioner and provide him a brand new defect free Air Condition of same model and make or refund the price of the A.C Rs.45,000/-to the Complainant. Further the O.P-1,2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand )only  as compensation, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand ) for mental agony of the petitioner and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand ) as litigation expenses. All the above direction are to be complied within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.         

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 13^th day of November-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

I agree                                               I agree

 

President                                           Member                                            Member(W)

                                               

        Dictated & Corrected

         by me

 

                                                   Member(W)