STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 25.09.2019
Date of final hearing: 05.09.2024
Date of pronouncement: 18.11.2024
First Appeal No.848 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. JOHNSON CONTROLS- HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING INDIA LTD. 9th Floor, Abhijeet-1, Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad- 380006, Gujarat-India.
2. JOHNSON CONTROLS- HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING INDIA LTD., Branch Office at: TF-301, 3rd Floor, DMRC Building, New Ashok Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi-110096, India.
3. M/s. VIJAY SALES, crown Plaza, Sector- 15A, Faridabad-121007 through its authorized representative Mr. Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Surender Kumar. ....Appellants
Versus
Shankar Pathak S/o Late Aditya Narayan Pathak, R/o H. No. 51, Sector-9, Faridabad, Haryana- 121006.…..Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member
Argued by:- Mr. Puneet Tuli, counsel for appellants.
Mr. A.K. Chandok, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 34 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay and accompanying affidavit which constitute sufficient cause.
2. Challenge in this Appeal No.848 of 2019 filed by appellants, has been invited to legality of order dated 08.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Faridabad (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.56 of 2019, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.
3. Factual matrix: Complainant purchased Hitachi AC 1.5 T SPL-SET from OP No.3 on 04.02.2018 for Rs.39,500/- for domestic use. This AC had been installed by Hitachi’s Authorized Service Centre-M/s. Haryana Cooling Solution on 08.02.2018 at complainant’s residence. As per plea; AC did not provide required cooling in summer, especially from April-2018 onwards i.e. for the purpose, it was purchased. Complaints during May and June-2018 were made to Hitachi Customer Care through mobile regarding non-cooling of installed AC. Hitachi’s representative suggested to install Stabilizer. Stabilizer named ‘V-Guard Voltage Stabilizer’ VW1 400 was installed with AC on 10.07.2018, yet, its cooling did not improve. In response to complaints; OP No.1’s representatives visited at his place to inspect the AC. Every time, they cleaned its filter and performance of AC improved a bit; they advised to clean the filter at interval of 15 days. Customer Care of Hitachi-OP No.1 casually took this matter so apparent from language used in their email replies. Complainant sent notice vide email dated 18.01.2019 and advised Hitachi company to refund Rs.39,500/- (cost Rs.37,500 + installation amount Rs.1500/-). Representative from OP No. 2’s Office at Gurugram, visited on 19.01.2019 and inspected the AC. They told him that they cannot measure its cooling because of severe cold during month of January-2019 at Faridabad. As per plea; OPs No. 1 & 2 did not provide satisfactory services and did not replace defective AC and their act amounts to deficiency in their service towards him. It is pleaded that AC is under warranty being purchased on 04.02.2018 and installed on 08.02.2018. It was conveyed to complainant that responsibility is of manufacturer company i.e. M/s Hitachi Company to provide service after sale within warranty period of one year. On these pleas; complaint has been filed for issuance of direction to OPs to pay Rs.39,500/- towards cost of AC including its installation charges with interest @18%; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
4. OP No. 1 & 2 raised contest. In its written defense; they have refuted claim of complainant and pleaded that he purchased one AC from OP No.3-M/s Vijay Sales Crown Plaza, Sector-15, Faridabad for Rs.29,297/- (excluding GST amount) on 04.02.2018 in good/sealed packed conditions, after having full satisfaction with said product, which carry warranty for period of one year, however compressor carry warranty for period of 5 years. As per warranty policy; if there be any issue/problem regarding product; then company shall repair it, free of cost. However, in case of damage to it, or if any of terms and conditions of warranty policy was/were violated or warranty period expired, then warranty policy shall be void and product shall be repaired on chargeable basis, to be paid by customer. Whenever complainant approached OPs No. 1 & 2 regarding issue with purchased product in question; same were addressed by them (as per warranty entitlement), even admitted by complainant. On visit of technician; subject product was inspected and complainant was advised to clear its filter and other normal wear and tear as already suggested in warranty card. Complainant was advised to follow instructions and guidelines provided in warranty card, however, he declined to follow the same and failed to state room size, where he was using said machine (AC) as it was the major factor for effective cooling. Complainant’s plea of ‘manufacturing defect’ in subject product has been denied by pleading that he has simply alleged that cooling is low and alleged manufacturing defect without any documentary proof. It is pleaded that as per condition of warranty; replacement of product is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of part thereof which needs replacement or repair for any reason of defective workmanship or defective components. Other pleas have been denied and dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
5. None had appeared on behalf of OP No.3 in the proceeding of learned District Consumer Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.03.2019.
6. Complainant as well as OP No. 1 & 2 to this lis led their respective evidence. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Faridabad has allowed the complaint vide order dated 08.07.2019 and directed OPs to replace the A.C in question with new one. OPs No.1 to 3 have been further directed to pay Rs.2,200/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony and also pay Rs.2,200/- towards litigation expenses to complainant, who has been directed to hand over old A.C. to OPs.
7. Feeling aggrieved; OPs have filed this appeal. We have heard counsel appearing for appellants and respondent/complainant at length. Vide order dated 02.12.2019 of this Commission, operation of the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 was stayed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/OPs has urged that impugned order dated 08.07.2019 is wrong, illegal and against the actual facts/evidence. It is urged that there is no evidence in form of expert opinion/proof brought on record by complainant to substantiate the plea of manufacturing defect in subject product (AC). Further, it is urged that complaints of complainant given regarding alleged low cooling of AC were duly addressed during warranty period which excludes replacement of subject AC with new product (AC) or to refund the cost of purchased product to complainant. It is urged that normal wears and tears in the subject product were removed during its warranty period. It is urged that learned District Consumer Commission has not dealt with the controversy revolving around above submissions which has led to passing of an erroneous order at legal pedestal.
9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent has supported the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 by urging that it is outcome of appreciation of all relevant facets of this case and no interference in it is warranted.
10. Admittedly, Hitachi AC had been purchased by complainant on 04.02.2018. Thereafter, more than 6 years have elapsed as on this day. Manufacturing defect in AC has been asserted by complainant. There is no evidence in form of any expert opinion/report led by complainant in order to substantiate his plea of manufacturing defect. Burden of proof lay upon complainant alone to prove that positive plea pleaded by him in his complaint and he has miserably failed to discharge said burden by not leading any evidence, as admissible in law. There being no evidence led by complainant to stimulate plea of manufacturing defect; learned District Commission has grossly erred in law while observing in impugned order that: mere lodging of complaints by complainant through emails ipso facto would prove that AC in question had manufacturing defect. Consequently, this finding of learned District Consumer Commission in impugned order dated 08.07.2019, being illegal and perverse, cannot be allowed to survive anymore. Accordingly, this finding is hereby set aside. As a legal corollary so flowing; the impugned order 08.07.2019, passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Faridabad in complaint No. 56 of 2019, too is set aside. Complaint filed by complainant is dismissed and he is non-suited. Present appeal preferred by opposite parties stands is allowed.
11. Before parting, it is observed that appellant/OPs would conduct one absolutely free service upon subject AC, in case, it is still kept installed by complainant in his premises and for that purpose appellants would make a prior call upon complainant/respondent.
12. Statutory amount of Rs.2,200/- deposited by appellants at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
13. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 18th November, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
