BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 720 of 2022
Date of Institution: 22.12.2022
Date of Decision: 22.02.2024.
Sudesh Rani, aged about 71 years wife of Sh. Santosh Taneja, r/o Shop no.119, New Mandi, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Near Subhash Chowk, Opp. Masjid, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its Prop. Mobile No. 78350-74376.
2. Johnson Controls- Hitachi Location India Registered Office: 903-904, Abhijeet-1st, Mithakhalli Six Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad- Gujarat- 380009, Telephone No. 079-26402024.
3. Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, 3rd Floor, Garg Traders, Ceater Behind, Rohini, North West, Delhi, Sector-11, Delhi- 110085, M. No. 98914-15206.
4. L.B. Electronics, Distributor, Sadar Bazar, Opp. Masjid, Sirsa through its Proprietor- 125055. M. No. 86078-06021, Ph. No. 01666-221121.
5. Johnson Controls- Hitachi authorized service From Dealer, Ludhiana Refrigeration and A.C. Repairing, Opp. Namdhari Gurudwara, Suratgaria Bazar, Sirsa- 125055, Haryana. M. No. 94660-03418 through its Proprietor Gurdeep Singh.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite parties no.3 to 5 also exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that op no.2 is a manufacturer of the Hitachi Refrigerator. That on 09.08.2019 ops no.1, 3 and 4 had sold out refrigerator SBS Hitachi to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,13,500/- vide bill dated 09.08.2019 and had given full guarantee and warranty of the refrigerator for four years to the complainant. It is further averred that since beginning the refrigerator is not working properly and is a defected peace and not giving internal cooling due to internal fault. That on complaint to ops’ office so many times through email etc. the service centre changed the gas of the refrigerator but not changed Machinery/ compressor/ motor and did not give new refrigerator and ops have caused unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service towards the complainant by selling a defective refrigerator. The ops have not redressed the grievances of the complainant despite several emails and as such complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the refrigerator alongwith interest and is also entitled to compensation of Rs. one lac for harassment etc. That complainant also got served a legal notice to the ops on 14.10.2022 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, initially op no.1 appeared through its employee Mr. Jaipal and filed written statement and submitted that op no.2 is the manufacturer of Hitachi Refrigerator. The answering op is not liable for the manufacturing defect of refrigerator which was found by op no.5 as per record, so the manufacturing company op no.2 is liable to change the refrigerator. Remaining contents of complaint qua op no.1 are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, suppression of material facts and that there is no manufacturing defect in the said product, moreover, it is settled proposition of law that when there is defect alleged, expert opinion is mandatorily required to be given by complainant in terms of Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and where there is no expert evidence provided by complainant to prove that the said product got any defect and in absence of any record with regard to inherent or latent defect, it cannot be held that the said product is suffering from manufacturing defect and on this ground alone the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that said product carries a warranty for a period of one year and a period of ten years for the compressor. That as per the warranty policy, if there will be any issue problem with the said product then the company shall repair the same free of costs. However, in the case of damage to the product or if any of the terms and conditions of the warranty policy is violated or 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. It is further submitted that complainant did not produce the invoice before the Commission. That op no.2 has its standard procedure and system to provide services when any customer approached them for services or grievance. The customer has to register his complaint through email or on a toll free number or through a mobile application to which their company generates a unique service number under which reference services are rendered and the same is informed to the concerned customer through service SMS. It is further submitted that whenever the complainant has approached the op no.2 for any issue, the same was addressed by op no.2 and the service engineer on behalf of op no.2 duly assisted the complainant and resolved the issue of complainant as per the warranty policy. That complainant herself admitted that technician on behalf of op no.2 had visited the premises of complainant and duly repaired the said product upon the complainant’s satisfaction but despite this fact the complainant has filed this complaint against op no.2 with malafide intention just to illegally extract money from op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
5. OPs no.3 to 5 did not appear despite notices and as such ops no.3 to 5 were proceeded against exparte. After filing written version on behalf of op no.1, none also appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was also proceeded against exparte.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C8, copy of adhar card Annexure A, copy of bill Annexure B, copy of cheque Annexure C, GSTIN number etc. of op no.1 Annexure D, emails Annexures E, F, job card Annexure G and broacher of op no.1 as Annexure H.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered evidence affidavit of Sh. Mohamad Afzal Vohra, authorized representative as Ex. RW2/A.
8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have gone through the case file.
9. Admittedly on 09.08.2019 complainant had purchased refrigerator of Hitachi company from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.1,13,500/- which fact is evident from bill Annexure B. The said refrigerator in question is manufactured by op no.2. The ops had given one year warranty on all parts of the refrigerator and ten years warranty on inverter compressor as is evident from warranty card placed on file. The complainant started facing problem in the refrigerator in question i.e. problem of cooling and gas leakage in September, 2022 and son of complainant sent various emails to the Hitachi Customer Service Center as is evident from emails Annexure E and F. The complainant has also placed on file job card dated 19.09.2022 issued by Service Centre of Hitachi company as Annexure G in which also issue of cooling and gas leakage was reported by the complainant. However, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that said problems in the refrigerator were rectified by the service center of op no.2. Since the complainant has used the refrigerator in question for three years, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that firstly ops are liable to repair the refrigerator in question and to make it defect free even by replacing any defective parts including compressor of the refrigerator if same is also defective without any costs. However, in case it is found that even after repair and replacement of defective parts, the refrigerator in question is still not defect free, then the ops will be liable to make refund of the price of the refrigerator in question after proportionate deductions as complainant has used the same for three years. In the eventuality, the complainant will be entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.75,000/- from ops no.1 to 4 being dealers and manufacturer as the complainant purchased the refrigerator in question for a sum of Rs.1,13,500/-.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the refrigerator in question of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing any defective parts, if any including compressor of the same if same is also found defective without any costs within a period of within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, in case it is found that even after repair of the refrigerator same is not defect free, then complainant will be entitled to receive the above said amount of Rs.75,000/- from ops no.1 to 4 within further period of 15 days failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.75,000/- from ops no.1 to 4 alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops no.1 to 4 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period of 45 days. The complainant will have to hand over the refrigerator in question to ops for its repair against proper receipt. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order as mentioned above. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 22.02.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
