Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/17

KHIYAL CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD TRUNK HOUSE - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHAN KUMAR VERMA

17 Jan 2022

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

                                               Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2020

                                              Date of institution: 22.07.2020

                                              Date of Decision: 17.01.2022

 

 

Khiyal Chand, aged about 61 years, son of Sh. Bishan Dass, resident of Village Batwar, P.O. Dadasiba, Near P.W.D. Electricity Office, Tehsil Dadasiba, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Vinod Trunk House, through its Proprietor, resident of Shop Name- Sleepwell Gallery, Khawaja Peer Mandir Road, Near State Bank of India, Adda Market, Nangal Townnship, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar
2. Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited, Branch Office at Sector 47-C, Near Canara Bank, Chandigarh, Pin Code 160047 through its Branch Manager
3. Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited, Head Office and Works, Address- Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi, District Mehsana, Gurjrat, Pin Code 382727   

                                                             ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                       Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

Present:    Sh. K.K. Verma, Advocate, for complainant   2020

Sh. Vinal Seth, authorized representative of OP No.1 (now proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.11.2020

Sh. Mohit Vashishat, Advocate. for OPs No.2 & 3

              
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President

Order

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased one Air Conditioner from OP No.1 vide bill No.899 dated 23.05.2019 and same was installed on the address of the complainant. From the very beginning of its installation, it started giving trouble. The complainant approached to the OP No.1 and he suggested him to lodge a complaint on Hitachi Platform. As per suggestion of OP No.1, the complainant through his son was lodged a first complaint on 04.06.2019 by his registered mobile number, but the field service team of OPs No.2 & 3 taking almost three months time to take action on his complaint not resolved the problem of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint so many times to Hitachi Platforms through his registered mobile numbers but all in vain. It is further averred that on 16.07.2020, the complainant again approached to the OP No.1 for resolving his issue and OP No.1 complained the matter to the area service manager, and on same day complainant received a telephonic call by the Area Service Manager namely Varinder Singh and he enquired all the matter and complainant also informed him about last complaint dated 19.05.2020 and at that time such complaint was still status as open and Area Service Manager assured him to resolve the issue very shortly. But after some time on same day complainant received a message that your last complaint dated 19.05.2020 has been closed. This act and conduct of the employees of the OPs shown that they play hide and seek with the complainant instead of resolving his complaint. The complainant further averred that the A.C. in question is within warranty period. Despite repeated request of the complainant, the Ops put on the matter on one pretext or the other. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To refund the whole amount of the Air. Conditioner i.e. Rs.37000/-   
2. To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for mental, physical and financial harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses
4. OPs further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as transportation charges, for carrying the faulted A.C., from the address of the OP No.1 to the residence of the complainant as well as the visiting expenditure from the house of the complainant to the shop of the OP NO.1.
5. To punish all the OPs severally so that culprits of similar kind would be afraid to indulge in such irresponsible activities.   

The complaint of the CC is signed and also verified.

2.      In reply, the O.P. No.1 has challenging the veracity of the complaint on the ground of maintainability & deficiency. On merits, it is averred that the OP No.1 forwarded the complaint to the service manager but except that the answering OP could not do as the after sale service are to be provided by the company itself. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the O.P. No.1 has denied any deficiency in service on their part.

3.       In reply, the OPs No.2 & 3 has challenging the veracity of the complaint on the ground of maintainability and cause of action. In reply, the OPs have also stated that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission. It is also stated that whenever the complainant approached the OP No.3 for anny issue with the said product the same would have been duly addressed by the technicians of the OP No.3 but it was the complainant, who while keeping a malafide intention in mind, file the present complaint and did not wait for a stipulated time to get the service done. The whole act was just to harass and extort money from OP No.3 in an illegal and malicious manner. The product in question carries a warranty for a period of one year and for a period of five years for the compressor. 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 cost. However, in case of damage to product or if any of the terms and conditions of the warranty policy shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis, to be paid by the customer. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the O.Ps. No.2& 3 have denied any deficiency in service on their part.

4.           The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along    with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Geeta Seth, proprietor of OP No.1 as Ex.OP1/A along with copy of invoice Ex.OP1/B and closed the evidence. 

5.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.           Admittedly, the CC purchased one Hitachi Air Conditioner from the OP1 vide invoice dated 23.5.2019 by paying an amount to the tune of Rs.37,000/- to OP1. Besides, filing the bill, CC has furnished any some other documents in the shape of evidence in support of his complaint. On the other hand, the OPs have not submitted any cogent evidence in support of their respective versions.

7.           It is writ-large on the file that the Air Conditioner of the CC developed some defect and stopped cooling and the OPs were duly contacted by him for the redressal of his grievance. It is also admitted that the CC had purchased this AC from OP1 by paying an amount of Rs.37000/- vide invoice No.899. There are specific allegations of the CC that in May, 2019, the AC purchased from OP1 and manufactured by OPs No. 2 & 3 started giving trouble and stopped giving cooling. However, on the other hand, the OPs have specifically alleged that the complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the OPs.

8.           Hearing the contentions of the counsel for the parties at length and examining the record, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant success to prove manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner. From the evidence on the record, one thing is evident that the A.C. purchased by the complainant gave some problems/troubles.  The complainant led evidence on the record, which has proved that his grievance was not attended to by the OPs for removing the defect in the A.C. Evidence of the OPs has been examined by us and they put up the case of total denial to the evidence of the complainant.

9.           We find a grain of truth in the evidence of the complainant, otherwise there was no reason for him to file such type of complaint by spending money on this litigation. No person would unnecessarily disturb his peace of mind by resorting to unwarranted and unsolicited litigation. It is was a newly purchased A.C. manufactured by the OP Nos. 2 & 3. 

10.         From the perusal of the file, it reveals that the learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has suffered a statement to the effect that the OPs company has ready to pay Rs.37,000/- to the complainant as full and final payment. Even, on the other hand, the OPs has not submitted any single piece of evidence in support of their respective version. Even no job card is produced by the OPs. Even, both the OPs have failed to submit the affidavit of the concerned mechanic, who visited the house of the CC and conducted the repair of the AC.

11.         In the absence of any cogent, reliance or confidence inspiring evidence from the side of the OPs, we are of the view that it is possible that the grievance of the CC was not redressed by the OPs to his satisfaction. Accordingly, we allow the complaint with the following directions to the Ops No.1 to 3:-

1. To refund the price of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs.37,000/- to the   complainant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of purchase of the Air Conditioner by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation
3. To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses 

The complainant is directed to give the defect Air Conditioner to the OPs within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The O.Ps. are also directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

 

January 17, 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

                                                 President

                                     

 

(Ranvir Kaur)