Haryana

Kaithal

CC/248/2022

Sh. Jitender Kumar Kohli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surya Trading Company etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mohinder Machal

18 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 248 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:   30.09.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      18.04.2024.

 

Jitender Kumar Kohli s/o Shri Ram Rattan, r/o H.No.78, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Surya Trading Company, near IG School, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
2. Hitachi India Private Limited, Tower-B, World Mark 1, Aerocity, New Delhi-110037, through Managing Director.
3. Johnson Controls Hitachi-Air Conditioning India Ltd., 903/904, Abhijeet-1, Mithakhalli Six Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujrat-38000.
4. Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi Distt. Mehsana-384440, Gujarat.

 

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Mohinder Machhal, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.2 to 4.

                   Opposite Party No.1 already ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased one Split Air Conditioner model SAC 1.5 Ton from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.STC-0332 dated 02.06.2021 for Rs.36,000/- with 10 years warranty. That on 15.06.2021, the said AC was making noise, so he made complaint at Hitachi Customer Care No.07971414848 which was registered vide Breakdown Request No.21061900911, but inspite of that, nobody visited his house and then he made various complaints again, but all in vain. That he visited the service centre of OPs, but no result. That on 19.06.2021, he wrote to Hitachi Twitter Handle (@Hitachihomes) tagging company official Gurmeet Singh in this regard, but the problem could not be resolved. That on 28.05.2022, AC stopped working again and he made complaint which was registered vide complaint No.2022052700010 and breakdown request No.22052804892 and engineer of OPs visited his house on 30.05.2022 and told that AC has some manufacturing defect and it needed to be replaced completely as the path of leakage of AC gas was not traced. That on 31.05.2022 he again twitted complaints to Hitachi’s Twitter Handle for replacement of the AC. That on 29.07.2022, AC again stopped working and he made complaint on toll free No.07971414848, which was registered vide Breakdown Request No.22062900753 and he received a phone call from Hitachi Service that the AC will be replaced shortly, but again only a part of AC was replaced. That on 12.08.2022, AC unit stopped working again and complaint was registered vide Breakdown Request No.22081202358, which is still lying unattended till today. The above act and conduct of OPs of selling defective AC, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs No.2 to 4 appeared before this Commission and filed their written statement, whereas, OP No.1 failed to appear, before this Commission, on the date fixed i.e. 23.11.2022, despite receipt of notice, by this Commission, and was opted to be proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                OPs No.2 to 4, in their written statement admitting the fact of purchasing the AC in question by the complainant on 02.06.2021 from OP No.1. It is further submitted that the products carries a warranty of one year and for years for compressor. That as per warranty policy, if there will be any issue problem with the said product, then the company shall repair the same free of costs. That in the present complaint, whenever the complainant reported issue in regards to the said product, the same was duly addressed by the technician of OPs No.3 & 4 and resolved the issue. That the service engineer of OPs were ready to repair the said product as per warranty terms and conditions, but despite that, complainant was keep asking for replacement or refund, which is totally beyond the agreed terms and conditions of OPs No.3 & 4. OPs No.3 & 4 sent an appointment letter to the complainant on 18.11.2022 seeking visit to the complainant premises in order to inspect the said product, but he did not respond to that letter and has filed the present complaint without any justifiable cause.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6.

5.                On the other hand, OPs No.2 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-2.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased one Hitachi Split Air Conditioner 1.5 Ton from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.STC-0332 dated 02.06.2021 for Rs.36,000/- with 10 years warranty. He further argued that on 15.06.2021, the said AC was making noise, so the complainant made complaint at Hitachi Customer Care No.07971414848 vide Breakdown Request No.21061900911, but inspite of that, nobody visited his house. He further argued that on 28.05.2022, AC stopped working again and the complainant made complaint vide complaint No.2022052700010 and breakdown request No.22052804892 and engineer of OPs visited the house of complainant on 30.05.2022 and told that AC has some manufacturing defect and it needed to be replaced completely as the path of leakage of AC gas was not traced. He further argued that on 29.07.2022, AC again stopped working and the complainant made complaint on toll free No.07971414848 vide Breakdown Request No.22062900753 and he received a phone call from Hitachi Service that the AC will be replaced shortly, but again only a part of AC was replaced. He further argued that on 12.08.2022, AC unit stopped working again and complaint was registered vide Breakdown Request No.22081202358, which is still lying unattended till today. He further argued that the above act and conduct of OPs of selling defective AC to the complainant, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Vs. Bijoy Kumar Roy and Anr., Revision Petition No.850-851 and 947-948 of 1996, Date of Decision 05.08.1999 (NC).

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.2 to 4 has argued that the products carry a warranty of one year and for years for compressor. He further argued that as per warranty policy, if there will be any issue problem with the said product, then the company shall repair the same free of costs. He further argued that in the present complaint, whenever the complainant reported issue in regards to the said product, the same was duly addressed by the technician of OPs No.3 & 4 and resolved the issue. He further argued that the service engineer of OPs were ready to repair the said product as per warranty terms and conditions, but despite that, complainant was keep asking for replacement or refund, which is totally beyond the agreed terms and conditions of OPs No.3 & 4. He further argued that OPs No.3 & 4 sent an appointment letter to the complainant on 18.11.2022 seeking visit to the complainant premises in order to inspect the said product, but he did not respond to that letter and has filed the present complaint without any justifiable cause.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that on 02.06.2021, the complainant purchased one Hitachi Split 1.5 Ton Air Conditioner (AC) from OP No.1 for Rs.36,000/-, vide Invoice Annexure C-1.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has firstly alleged that on 15.06.2021, the said AC was making noise, so the complainant made complaint at Hitachi Customer Care No.07971414848 which was registered vide Breakdown Request No.21061900911, but inspite of that, nobody visited the house of complainant to rectify the defect of the Act.

11.              He further alleged that on 28.05.2022, the said AC stopped working again and the complainant made complaint with OPs, which was registered vide breakdown request No.22052804892 (Annexure C-4) and engineer of OPs visited the house of complainant on 30.05.2022 and told that AC has some manufacturing defect and it needed to be replaced completely.

12.              He further alleged that on 29.07.2022, AC again stopped working and the complainant made complaint on toll free number vide Breakdown Request No.22062900753 (Annexure C-2) and he received a phone call from Hitachi Service that the AC will be replaced shortly, but again only a part of AC was replaced.

13.              He further alleged that on 12.08.2022, AC unit stopped working again and complaint was registered vide Breakdown Request No.22081202358 (Annexure C-5), which is still lying unattended till today.

14.              In order to support his above contentions, complainant produced documentary evidence as Annexure C-2 to C-5 on the case file.

15.              Annexure C2 is of dated 28.06.2021, wherein it is mentioned that “Your Breakdown req. 22062900753 for the Air Conditioner shall be attended asap (as soon as possible)”.

16.              Annexure C3 is of dated 18.08.2022, wherein it is mentioned that “Your Breakdown req. 22081804589 for the Air Conditioner shall be attended asap (as soon as possible)”.

17.              Annexure C4 is of dated 28.05.2022, wherein it is mentioned that “Your Breakdown req. 22052804892 for the Air Conditioner shall be attended asap (as soon as possible)”.

18.              Annexure C5 is of dated 12.08.2022, wherein it is mentioned that “Your Breakdown req. 22081202358 for the Air Conditioner shall be attended asap (as soon as possible)”.

19.              So, from the above documents Annexure C-2 to C-5, it is crystal clear that the AC in question has been purchased by the complainant on 02.06.2021, but there occurs some problems in it, from the very beginning and in this regard, complainant lodged complaint with the OPs on 28.06.2021 Annexure C-2. Thereafter, complainant also lodged various complaints with the OPs regarding defect in the AC in question time and again Annexure C-3 to C-5 respectively, but as per complainant, the OPs failed to rectify the defect of the AC in question, because there was some manufacturing defect in the AC in question.  

20.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.2 to 4 simply contended that whenever the complainant reported issue in regards to the said product, the same was duly addressed by the technician of OPs No.3 & 4 and resolved the issue, but it is pertinent to mention here that he (OPs) failed to produce any documentary evidence/job-sheet, on the case file, vide which, it can be proved that they rectified the defect of the AC in question, to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further OPs No.2 to 4 also did not produce any affidavit/expert report of said technician/engineer, on the case file, who checked the defect of the AC in question.

21.               In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the complainant purchased the AC in question on 02.06.2021, and made very first complaint regarding defect in the AC on 28.06.2021 (Annexure C-2) i.e. after only 22 days of purchasing the same, within the warranty period, and made last complaint in this regard on 12.08.2022 (Annexure C-5). Meaning thereby, OPs No.2 to 4 failed to rectify the defect of the AC in question, for a long time, inspite of repairs time and again, due to which, the complainant might have suffered mental agony and physical harassment. The above act and conduct of OPs No.2 to 4 amounts to deficiency in service, on their part. Hence in these circumstances, the complainant is entitled for replacement of AC in question, with new one. In this regard, our view is fully supported by the case law titled West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Vs. Bijoy Kumar Roy and Anr. (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1)(b) – Replacement – Defect – Power tiller – Defect occurred within warranty period – Same not removed for long time – Complainant entitled to replacement of old tiller with new one.

22.              Since OP No.1 is only the seller of the product, who sold the same, in packed condition, to the complainant, and after sale out the same, if any defect or internal problem arose, in the product in question, within warranty period, then OPs No.2 to 4, being manufacturing unit, is/was liable to resolve the same, as per warranty policy, not the seller i.e. OP No.1. Hence, in view of above facts, no liability can be fastened against OP No.1 and the complaint filed against it, is liable to be dismissed.

23.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint against OPs No.2 to 4 and dismiss the same against OP No.1. We direct OPs No.2 to 4 to replace the AC in question, with new one of the same model, subject matter of Invoice Annexure C-1, to the complainant, subject to return of old AC in question, by the complainant, to OPs No.2 to 4. In case, OPs No.2 to 4 is not in position to replace the AC in question of the same model/design, then they will refund the cost price of the AC amounting Rs.36,000/-, to the complainant. OPs No.2 to 4 are further directed to make the compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the cost price of AC in question amounting to Rs.36,000/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

24.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:18.04.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.