DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 71 of 2019

 

 

Smt. Sima Dasgupta,

W/O. Sri Samar Chakraborty,

Resident of Jogendranagar, P.S.-East Agartala, 

P.O.-Jogendranagar, Pin-799004,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Manager,

Service Operation,

HITACHI Home & Life Solution(India) Limited, 

9th Floor, Abhijeet-1, Mithakhali Six road, 

Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380006.

 

2. M/S. Standard Electronic,

Represented by its Proprietor, 

Mantribari Road (near Dainik Sambad),

P.O.-Agartala-799001, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura..................................................................................... Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Mr. Abhijit Sengupta

  Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Amritlal Saha,

  Mr. Kajal Nandi,

  Mr. Abeek Saha,

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Bikram Paul,

  Advocate.  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 16/06/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Smt. Sima Dasgupta, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining negligence & deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased an Air Conditioning machine(for short AC machine) of HITACHI 1.5, TR(SUGIO) Model No. SE141A02533(IDU) 141 A 02335 (OD) Machine SR No. RAC 518 HUDD-5 Star  on 01/04/2014 from the authorized distributor of O.P. No.1, namely, M/S Standard Electronics, the O.P. No.2. Unfortunately in the month of June, 2017 it was found that the said AC machine was malfunctioning. Accordingly, it was informed to the O.P. No.2 verbally as well as over telephone and the O.P. No.2 sent its technical staffs for removing the defect and after inspection O.P. No.2 advised the Complainant that the said AC machine was not getting sufficient power supply / voltage and it would require to increase the power supply / voltage for its proper functioning. As per advise of the technical staffs of the O.P. No.2, the Complainant installed another electric line in her premises from the TSECL and the said electric line was connected with the AC machine of the Complainant but the disturbance in the AC machine was not resolved. Accordingly, the Complainant once again informed the matter to the O.P. No.2. Thereafter, the O.P. No.2 once again sent his technical staffs for checking the electric line and the AC machine. Accordingly, technical staffs advised to the Complainant that one Stabilizer of 5 Kv. Volt was required to be installed of the AC machine. The Complainant purchased one Stabilizer of 5 Kv. Volt for better performance of her AC machine but the performance of the AC machine was not good after installation of the Stabilizer. The Complainant met with the Proprietor of O.P. No.2 who informed the Complainant that the COMPRESSOR of the AC machine should be replaced. Thereafter nothing was informed to the Complainant regarding replacement of the Compressor by the O.P. No.1 and 2. The Complainant sent a letter to the O.P. No.1 on 16/05/2019 through her G-mail account, she informed all these facts to the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 replied the said letter on 20/05/2019. The O.P. No.1 informed the Complainant that the field-team from the concerned service centre would attend and resolve the problem very shortly but, no one from the concerned service centre came to the premise of the Complainant to make the AC machine functional. Thereafter, the Complainant by her letter dated 03/06/2019 informed the O.P. No.1 that the Authorized Distributor i.e. O.P. No.2 had denied to attend and solve the disturbance of the AC machine of the Complainant. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 received the said G-mail of the Complainant and replied on 09/06/2019 where the O.P. No.1 has informed that their service team would resolve the problem of the AC machine within the shortest possible time but the O.P. No.1 did not send any service staffs. After long verbal and e-mail correspondence, the O.Ps. did not change the Compressor of the AC machine of the Complainant but Complainant herself by spending money replaced the Compressor of the AC machine through the other reputed service provider. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.2 lakh as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony  costs from the O.Ps. 

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statements. 

        The O.P. No.1 in their written statement stated that the Complainant had purchased an Air Conditioning machine(for short AC machine) of HITACHI 1.5, TR(SUGIO) Model No. SE141A02533(IDU) 141 A 02335 (OD) Machine SR No. RAC 518 HUDD-5 Star  on 01/04/2014 from O.P. No.2 manufactured by O.P. No.1 in good and sealed packed conditions after having full satisfaction with the said product. It is further stated that the O.P. No.2 is not an authorized dealer of O.P. No.1, but merely a reseller of products. It is further stated that the said product carries a warranty for a period of one year and the compressor of the same carries a warranty for a period of 5 years that as per terms and conditions of the warranty policy the manufacture are liable for repairing of the product and after expiring of the warranty period on chargeable basis. It is further submitted that the Complainant had availed the third party services for which they have violated  the terms and conditions of the warranty and the complaint was lodged after the expiry of the warranty period. So complaint is not maintainable in law. 

O.P. No.2 in their written statement stated that the petition is bad for suppression of material facts and there is no cause of action for filing this complaint. It is further stated that the technical staff was send by the O.P. for removing the defect and Complainant was advised to change the electric phase or use of stabilizer but the Complainant failed to obey the advise. It is further stated that as the warranty period was already over on 30/03/2019 the answering O.P. had no responsibility. The other allegations made by the Complainant are denied by the O.P. No.2 and it is further stated that there was no fault for giving service to the Complainant as per terms and condition of the warranty.  

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

Complainant has examined herself as PW-I and she has submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 6 documents comprising 7 sheets under a Firisti dated 26/08/2019. The documents are namely Copy of letter issued by Petitioner to the O.P. through mail dated 16/05/2019, Copy of reply of O.P. to the Petitioner through mail dated 20/05/2019, Copy of letter issued by Petitioner to O.P. through mail dated 03/06/2019, Copy of Reply of O.P. to the Petitioner through mail dated 09/06/2019, Copy of letter issued by Petitioner to O.P. through mail dated 14/06/2019 & Reply of O.P. to the Petitioner through mail dated 18/06/2019. On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.Ps. side. 

           On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Biplab Kanti Pal, of West Joynagar (Upendra Vidya Bhavan), P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura was examined as OPW-1. The said witness was also cross examined by the Complainant side. The said witness has produced 1 document under a Firisti dated 16/12/2020. The documents are namely Original Warranty Card of HITACHI Split AC purchased by Smt. Sima Dasgupta.  On identification the document have been  marked  as Exhibit -A Series.

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points are cropped up for determination: 

        (I) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  any compensation/relief as prayed for?

5.          ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:  

               On the date of arguments Learned Advocate of the Complainant was absent. Though written argument is submitted by the O.P. No.1. 

               Now, we will decide the case on merit.                             

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  For the sake of convenience both points are taken-up together for the same of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts. 

                  We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both parties. We have also gone through the evidences adduced by the parties. From the pleadings we find that the Complainant purchased an AC machine on 01/04/2014 from the Showroom of O.P. No.2. From Exhibited-A series documents we find that the one G-mail correspondence was made by the Complainant to the Manager, Service Operation(O.P. No.1). It is found that the Complainant made a prayer for perform warranty as per condition. She stated that she has purchased an AC machine on 01/04/2014 and her machine had been disturbing from June,2017 i.e. after 3.5 years and thereafter she made contact a person who is technical staff of O.P. No.2. But ultimately the machine was not giving service and has become almost out of order. This G-mail correspondence was dated 16/05/2019, this is her first  written correspondence with the O.P. No.1. PW-1, the Complainant in her cross-examination stated that she knows the warranty period of the A.C. Machine for one year and that of the compressor was for 5 years from the date of purchase. She had used the machine comfortably for 3 years and thereafter it started giving problem. Then as per advise of the O.P. No.2, she purchased one stabilizer for the A.C. Machine. In cross she again stated that staff of the O.P. No.2 co-operated with her in looking after her A.C. Machine upto June,2017. She again stated that she had knowledge that the O.P. No.2 are not the service provider and they do not provide servicing facility to any customer's. She admitted that she did not submit any bill of stabilizer and she again stated that she had purchased 2 more A.C. Machines from the O.P. No.2 earlier. After going through the other evidences adduced by the O.Ps., we find that actually there is no consumer dispute and no problem arises within warranty period and the Complainant made a written prayer after expiry of the warranty period to the O.P. No.1 ventilating her problem arisen out of A.C. Machine. 

              On over all appreciation of entire evidence we are in the opinion that the Complainant has failed to make out a consumer dispute and she has failed to prove her case. 

             Hence, the complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

       Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties  free of cost. 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA