Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

17/2014

D.Kanagamani, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivek Limited, rep. by its Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

K.M.Malarmannan

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.01.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.03.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 22^nd DAY OF MARCH 2017

 

C.C.NO.17/2014

 

 

 

D.Kanagamani,

W/o.Dhakshinamurthy,

No.3/106, 3^rd Street,

New Nagar, M.K.B.Nagar,

Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs.

 

1. Vivek Limited,

Rep.by it’s Manager,

No.205, Purasawalkam High Road,

Purasawalkkam,

Chennai – 600 084.

 

2.Vivek Limited,

Rep.by it’s Manager,

Corporate Office,

150, (New No.68) 2^nd Floor,

Luz Church Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

 

3. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (1) Limited,

Represented by its Regional Manager,

Regional and Branch Office,

Tulsi Apartments, No.47, II Main Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

 

4. Hitachi Complex, Head Office,

Represented  by its General Manager,

Karan Nagar, Kadi District,

Mehsana – Gujarat 382 727.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 27.01.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. K.M.Malarmannan,

                                                                    S.L.Venkatesan, B.Mahendran

                                                                    & K.Nagarajan.

 

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties:      Mr.K.P.C.Mogan & M.Nagarathinam

 

Counsel for 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties           : M/s.T.Srinivasaraghavan & Associates

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Hitachi Split Air Conditioner 1.50 Ton from the Opposite Party on 04.01.2013 for a consideration of Rs.31,300/-. She also purchased a Stabilizer on the same day. She further paid a some of Rs.1,400/- towards installation charges and thus totally paid a sum of Rs.37,000/- to the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the Corporate Office of the 1^st Opposite Party. The 4^th Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Hitachi Split Air Conditioner and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the Regional Office of the 4^th Opposite Party at Chennai. Though the Complainant purchased on 04.01.2013 the AC was installed belatedly on 21.01.2013 after 17 days of the purchase. At the time of installation the Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.5,700/- for the 9 ½  meters copper pipe and further charge of Rs.250/- for copper wire at the time of installation.

          2. After installation while using the AC product, there was abnormal noise indoor and outdoor unit while the product was in operation. The Complainant made Complaint on 08.02.2013 and the Opposite Parties service centre persons attended the Complaint on 09.02.2013 and assured that the noise problem would not arise. The Complainant again alleged similar Complaint and the Opposite Parties service person visited on 27.03.2013 and after inspection they informed that they have solved the noise problem. Again another Complaint was lodged on 16.04.2013 and the service personal attended the same on 18.04.2013. The service personal on 01.07.2013 deducted the water leakage in the indoor unit and also deducted leakage of gas in the unit on 03.10.2013. The Supervisor of the Vivek Service Centre visited on 04.10.2013 and informed the Complainant that the AC is in usable condition. The service personal deducted apart from the abnormal noise leading to several problems in the AC such as water leakage, leakage of gas etc. The very purpose of installation of Air Conditioner was defeated as the product became defective. The Complainant issued legal notice dated 13.11.2013 for the deficiency in the product and the 2^nd Opposite Party gave reply dated 26.11.2003. Since, the product is having manufacturing defect and same was not replaced with new one as assured by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 the Complainant filed this Complaint to replace the defective Air Conditioner with new product and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY AND ADOPTED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has purchased one Hitachi Split Air Conditioner 1.50 Ton capacity from the 1^st Opposite Party. Though the date of installation was fixed on 07.01.2013, the Complainant has stated that she is going to change the model and she requested to install the Air Conditioner after changing the model. Hence the Complainant was the cause for the delayed installations further the Complainant has purchased the Air Conditioner knowingly fully that it does not have any copper pipe. The noise emerged only in the Stabilizer and it was also rectified. During last week of March, 2013 the noise once again arose due to tripper switch failure. It was also rectified immediately. The water leakage problem was emerged due to block in the drain hose and the same was cleaned and the unit was working normally. The further allegation in that para with regard to the Gas leakage in the indoor unit is also refuted as false. On inspection, the authorized service center found that there is leakage in the indoor coil, particularly in the cooling coil and it was informed that the indoor coil needs to be replaced and the matter was taken to the manufacturer for replacement of indoor unit with a new one along with an additional warranty for another one year. But the Complainant is adamant in getting replacement of entire units.  All the complaints with regard to the noise problem, water leakage and gas leakage were promptly attended. The Air Conditioner supplied to the Complainant is not a defective one as narrated by the Complainant. The Complainant for the first time, for the purpose of this Complaint has stated that the machine did not provide cooling to the room temperature. As the Opposite Parties attended the problem and the Complainant is not accepting to replace the indoor unit  the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and   prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 4^th  OPPOSITE PARTY AND ADOPTED BY THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 4^th Opposite Party collected information only from the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The Complaint itself is not maintainable against the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties as the Complainant has no privy of contract with them. It is clear from the service report that the noise problem was due to the problem with the stabilizer; there is low voltage and also tripper switch problem; the water leakage problem was due to block in the drain hose; no cooling problem was due to gas leakage. All these problems are not connected to the manufacturer but only due to external problems not connected to the Opposite Parties. It is crystal clear that no defects were found in the Air Conditioner machine either in the indoor or outdoor units. The defects noticed were not with respect to the Air Conditioner machine but due to the factors which are not connected to the manufacturer of the machine. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties due to the pressure exerted by the Complainant requested this Opposite Party for a replacement or indoor unit with new one. But the Complainant was adamant stating that both the indoor and outdoor units should be replaced. However, the same was not agreed to by this Opposite Parties as well as 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The Air Conditioner machine does not suffer from any manufacturing defect and hence prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Hitachi Split Air Conditioner 1.50 Ton  from the 1^st Opposite Party/dealer under Ex.A2 bill for valuable consideration along with Stabilizer and the said AC product was installed at his premises on 21.01.2013 and at the time of installation the Complainant also paid charges for the copper pipe and copper wire for a sum of Rs.6,540/- and after installation while the Complainant was using the product there was noise in the indoor unit and the same was complained to the Opposite Parties  1  & 2   on 08.02.2012 and that was attended by their service personal on 09.02.2013 and thereafter again noise problem, water leakage and gas leakage problems were attended   by the service personal of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and the service personal issued job sheet were marked as Ex.A3 saying that they have solved the problem in the job sheet and the Complainant wanted the Opposite Parties to replace with new product and however the Opposite Parties 1 & 2  with concurrence of the  Opposite Parties 3 & 4 agreed to replace the indoor unit alone and that was refused by the Complainant and insisted  for replacement of both indoor and outdoor unit and that was not agreed by the Opposite Parties and thereafter the Complainant issued Ex.A4 legal notice  dated to the Opposite Parties and the 2^nd Opposite Party gave Ex.A5 reply notice dated 26.11.2013.

          7. The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Parties are that

1. Delay in installation of AC,
2. Noise problems,
3. Water leakage in the drain pipe and
4. Gas leakage and cooling problems and due to all the above deficiency the product is having manufacturing defect and hence he wants replacement of new product.

8. Admittedly the Complainant purchased the product on 04.01.2013 and agrees to installation on the same day and however the product was installed on 21.01.2013 with a delay of 17 days. The Opposite Party 1 & 2 would reply for the delay in written version that the Complainant wanted to change the model and only for that purpose the delay was occurred and hence the delay in installation caused only due to the Complainant and not by the Opposite Parties. This fact was not denied by the Complainant in his evidence of proof affidavit which was filed on 03.07.2014 subsequent to the filling written version of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 on 30.05.2014. Therefore after purchase of the product the Complainant informed to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to change the model of the product is accepted and due to that reason only the product was installed with 17 days is also accepted and in view of the same there was no deficiency in installing the product.  

9. The noise problem, the water leakage in the drain pipe, gas leakage and cooling problem defects were attended by the Opposite Parties service personal then and there and that was also evidenced through the job sheets issued by the service personal which was marked in Ex.A3 at page 31 to 35. The Complainant pleaded in the Complaint that on 04.10.2013 one Mr.Iqbal Supervisor of the 1^st Opposite Party visited the Complainant and after inspection of the unit, he informed that there was crack in the indoor unit coil and the unit should be taken to their service centre for bringing it to the normal condition and the said Supervisor also asked the Complainant not to use the unit, until it is restored to usable condition. In the written version of the 1 & 2 Opposite Parties it has been pleaded that the authorities service centre found that there is leakage in the indoor coil particularly in the cooling coil and it was informed that the indoor coil needs replaced and the matter was taken to the manufacturer for replacement of indoor unit with a new one along with additional warranty for another one year. The above pleading proves that the indoor coil in the units is a defective one. Such defective indoor coil irresistibly leads to conclusion that the indoor coil is only having a manufacturing defect and that is why the Opposite Parties have agreed to replace the indoor unit with new one.  Since the indoor coil in the indoor unit is having manufacturing defect, we hold that the entire unit is having manufacturing defect and therefore, it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 have committed Deficiency in Service.

10. POINT NO:2

          The Opposite Parties have agreed to replace only indoor unit which was not agreed by the Complainant and insisted for replacement of entire unit. During arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 submitted that they will replace with new model and the Complainant has to pay the difference amount and the model supplied to the Complainant is out moded, and however the Complainant is not willing for this offer. The submission of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 is reasonably requiring the Complainant to pay the difference in amount. Therefore in such circumstances we are of the view that the cost of the product purchased by the Complainant has to be refunded to meet the ends of justice and the Complainant has to handover the AC unit is with him to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties can be ordered to refund a sum of Rs.37,000/- as per Ex.A2 purchase bill to the Complainant. Due to the defects in the product the Complainant had suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate to order to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

      In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly or severally  are ordered to refund the cost of the Hitachi Split Air Conditioner 1.50 Ton Rs.37,000/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand only) to the Complainant and simultaneously the Complainant also should handover the product to the Opposite Party and further the Opposite Party  also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.   

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd   day of March 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Air Conditioner Manual

Ex.A2 dated 04.01.2013                   Purchase Bill

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Performance Test cheque list Series Receipts

Ex.A4 dated 13.11.2013                   Legal Notice issued by the Complainant

Ex.A5 dated 26.11.2013                   Reply Notice by the 2^nd Opposite Parties to the 

                                                    Complainant

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

                                                ……. NIL ……..

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT