Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 533.
Instituted on : 31.10.2018.
Decided on : 08.06.2021.
Aashi minor daughter of Shri Amit Garg and grand-daughter of Smt. Pushpa Garg wife of Sh. Kewal Krishan Garg, through her legal guardian and next friend Smt. Pushpa Garg, resident of H. No.600/A, Ward no.24, DLF Colony, behind DAV Public School, Haryana, Rohtak-124001.
……………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sargam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Raj Complex adjoining Tata Motors Showroom, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001, through its Proprietor.
- Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd., Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited(Formerly known as Hitachi Home & Life Solutions(India) Limited) 301, Third Floor, DMRC Building New Ashok Nagar Metro Station New Delhi-110096 through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Argued: Shri Ravinder Dhankhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.1 in person.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant alongwith her grand-daughter purchased an Air Conditioner of 1.5 ton of the Hitachi Company bearing Model No.RDS 318 EAD BP01393 from the respondent no.1 on 7.4.2018 and spending an huge amount of Rs.29,000/- alongwith stabilizer amounting of Rs.2900/- i.e. total amount of Rs.31,900/-. The respondent no.1 sold the defective piece of Air Conditioner to the complainant and from the very day of installation, the Air Conditioner was not working properly as there was no cooling from the Air Conditioner and the remote control was also defective and in a broken condition. In this regard, the complainant complained about the defective piece to the respondents and their service personnel came to the house of the complainant and told that the gas of the same is leaking. Just in 15 days, the complainant complained three times about the defects in the Air Conditioner but the respondents did nothing. The complainant has complained to the respondents so many times since 7.4.2018 till date regarding the defective Air conditioner but the respondents did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant gave a registered AD notice to the respondents through her counsel on 19.9.2018 but the respondents did not give any reply to the above said notice. Hence, this compliant and it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the A.C. in question with new one or to refund the amount of A.C. alongwith stabilizer total Rs.31900/- alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and deficiency in service to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has not mentioned anywhere in his complaint that the product was defective at the time of purchase. The complainant was given sealed pack and new Hitachi Air Conditioner by opposite party No.1 and he was fully satisfied at the time of purchase. It is further submitted that the first complaint registered with customer care of OP no.2 is of dated 21.4.2018 vide no.180042107696 which was for ‘remote control not working’. It is evident from this complaint that the said AC was in working condition at the time of installation and even fifteen days after the purchase. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer and principle service provider and appropriate party to resolve genuine complaint of the product. There is no prima facie case against the opposite party No.1. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has purchased one AC from OP no.1 of Rs.31,900/-(including stabilizer) on 7.4.2018 in good and sealed packed conditions. It is denied that the product was not working properly from the very first day. It is further submitted that the after purchasing the AC and using it joyfully for more than three months and the complainant first approached the opposite party no.2 on 19.7.2018 with some issue of no cooling of AC which was duly addressed by the technicians of OP no.2 and conducted all the necessary maintenance work and refilled the gas by which the product was working properly fine and the complainant was completely satisfied. The job sheet dated 19.7.2018 was duly signed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant again approached the opposite party no.2 for the second time i.e. on 12.09.2018 with some issue of machine non working of AC, which was duly addressed by the technicians of opposite party no.2 and found that the AC was working completely fine and there was no issue at all. Hence, the complainant was completely satisfied and there is no issue left. Te job sheet dated 12.09.2018 was duly signed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant again after some time approached the OP no.2 for the third time but while asking for the service to the complainant, the complainant refused for the visit of the technician of the opposite party no.2 at the place and adamant for the refund or for the replacement which could not be done as per the terms and conditions of warranty that if the product is repairable then replacement cannot be done. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of OP no.2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on 18/09/2019. OP no.1 was appeared in person and stated that the reply already file in this case be read as affidavit in his evidence and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence on dated 8.11.20219. Ld. counsel for the OP no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.OPW2/A and Ex.OPW2/C, and closed his evidence on dated 14.2.2020.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 on dated 17.02.2021 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the A.C. in question on 07.04.2018. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant there was defect in the A.C. in question from the very beginning. Two job sheets have been placed on record by the respondent no.2 itself. One is Ex.OP2/A and other is Ex.OP2/B dated 19.07.2018 and 12.09.2018 respectively. As per Ex.OP2/A, Gas charge was done and A.C. O.K., As per Ex.OP2/B, the complainant reported that “Machine not working” and as per Engineer observation, “There was some problem regarding Gas , gas charge completed and A.C. became O.K.”. Opposite party has also placed on record two mails Ex.R1 & Ex.R2. As per Ex.R1, the subject is ‘No Cooling’. As per Ex.R2 dated 10.08.2018, it is submitted that : “Customer indoor unit flap is broken call pending last 22 days, customer is very hyper”. Meaning thereby there is mechanical defect in the A.C. in question. The A.C. in question was purchased by the complainant on 07.04.2018 and the defects in the A.C. appeared just within 3 months, which could not be removed even after charging of Gas and other repair work done by opposite parties. As per email Ex.R2, the call is pending for last 22 days, which shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party No.2 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of A.C. in question.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is hereby allowed and opposite party no.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.31900/-(Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 31.10.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However opposite party No.2 is directed to collect the A.C. in question alongwith stabilizer & remote from the residence of the complainant at the time of making payment.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.06.2021.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
