Delhi

North East

CC/123/2016

Rajesh Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Venus E-Mart Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 123/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Natthi Lal R/o House No.C44/208 Gali No.10, Sudamapuri Gamdi Extn. Delhi -110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.                 3.	Venus E-Mart Pvt Ltd F-610, main Wazirabad Road, Khajoori Khas, Near Bank of Baroda. Opp Bhajanpura Bus stand, Delhi-110094.   Hitachi Home & Life Solutions India Ltd A Johnson Control-Hitachi Air-conditioning Company Regional and Bracnh office: Hitachi Home and life soluiction (India ltd) A-15 1st Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road New Delhi-110044.   Hitachi Home & Life Solutions India Ltd Authorized Service Centre Ground Floor 35, F.I.E. Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi-110091.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

10.05.2016 12.02.2020 12.02.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he had purchased Hitachi Split AC with capacity of 1.5ton manufactured by OP2 from OP1 on 23.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 30,933/- vide Bill no. VEBH/99. The complainant also paid installation charges copper pipe and other product for a sum of Rs. 6,860/- on 24.04.2016 from OP3 vide invoice No. 955. However, the subject AC started giving noise problem from the very date of its installation for which complainant lodged a complaint No. 16042507285 with the customer care of OP2. Thereafter service executive from OP3, Authorized Service Centre (ASC) of OP2 attended to the complaint on 25.04.2016 with observation of indoor problem noisy all time and filled the gas in the subject AC. However, the AC continued to malfunction. Thereafter complainant lodged another complaint on 25.04.2016 to 28.04.2016 with customer care of OP2 but despite several complaints, the same went un-responded to in terms of failure to rectify the defect in AC remaining unresolved and from May 2016 onwards, OPs have not been responding to the calls of the complainant and complainant had to endure the heat and adverse weather condition due to noise problem in the subject AC obstructing his sleep. Complainant wrote e-mails to OP3 dated 30.04.2016, 05.05.2016, 07.05.2016 asking for resolution of his problem with the subject AC which was closed at OPs end despite not having been solved and therefore complainant sought refund of its cost which e-mails were acknowledged by OP3 vide e-mail dated 30.04.2016, 05.05.2016 and 07.05.2016 vide which response OP assured the complainant with early resolution from its service team but did not act upon the assurance given. Therefore alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant was compelled to file the present complaint praying for issuance of direction against OPs to refund Rs. 43660/- towards cost of AC and its installation alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for physical mental and financial agony.

Complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice, copy of installation receipt, copy of jobsheet dated 25.04.2016 and e-mail exchanged between parties dated 30.04.2016 to 07.05.2016 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 05.07.2016. However none of the OPs appeared despite service effected on them on 16.07.2016, 14.07.2016 and 09.08.2016 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 29.09.2016 and 20.10.2016     
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments and placed on record additional documents by way of e-mails exchanged between the complainant and OP between 09.06.2016 to 14.07.2016 in the nature of reminders given by complainant to OP for redressal of his grievance of defective AC and assurance given by OP for early resolution. The complainant exhibited the documents relied upon as CW1/1 to CW1/4 (colly).

By way of additional argument, complainant placed on record jobsheet dated 17.06.2016 and 18.07.2017 in the latter, installation / commission dated was incorrectly mentioned as 13.05.2016 with purchase date 12.05.2016 whereas the AC was purchased on 23.04.2016 and installed on 24.04.2016.The complainant further urged that on 28.04.2016 and 29.04.2016 a technician of OP3 visited his residence and told the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the subject AC but returned without rectifying the defect.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by complainant and have perused the documents placed on record.

It is evident from the face of the record place before us that the subject AC was malfunctioning from the very first day of its purchase / installation for which the complainant lodged several complaints with OPs and from the e-mails it can be ascertained that apart from hollow assurances and perfunctory responses given by OPs, nothing was done by them in terms of resolving the defects in the subject AC. Even the insertion in jobsheet dated 18.07.2017 are incorrectly incorporated showing recklessness of Ops, not to over look the complainant’s remarks on the jobsheets dated 25.04.2016, 17.06.2016 and 18.07.2017 of being dis-satisfied with OPs product and services and asking for refund.

5. From the bare perusal of the repeated and innumerous complaints lodged by the complainant with respect to the subject AC, it leaves no room for doubt that the AC in question was defective machine supplied by OP1 and OP2 which went repeatedly out of order many times during the warranty period and the defects were also not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant by OP3. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Rellech Bio Chemical System Vs Amulya Kumar Behara (Dr.) (2007) IV CPJ 388 (NC) had in a similar case upheld the order of the lower Fora holding the OPs guilty of deficiency of service in having failed to render service within warranty period.

In the present case in view of the permanent deficiency in the functioning of subject AC which could not function from its very date of purchase requiring repeated repairs and still not working satisfactorily, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are guilty of deficiency of service in having sold the defective AC in capacity of dealer manufacturer and service centre to the complainant and having failed to repair the same by the service centre and therefore direct all OPs jointly and severally liable for the same.

6. We therefore direct all the OPs jointly and severally to refund the cost of the AC i.e. Rs. 37,793/- (cost of AC + Installation) to the complainant. We further direct all OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.             
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on 12.02.2020.

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member