BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.172/2018.
Date of instt.:26.06.2018.
Date of Decision:31.10.2019.
Amit Jain son of Sh. Deep Chand, r/o H.No.175, Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Chaudhary Electronics, Koel Complex Market, Kaithal through its owner/proprietor.
- Dev Electronics, Authorized Service Centre, Hitachi, Secretariat Road, Opp. Water Tank, HUDA-19-A, Kaithal, through its Manager/Executive Officer.
- Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. (Formerly known as Hitachi House & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., 301, Third Floor, DMRC Building, New Ashok Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi-110096, through its Managing Director.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present : Sh. Mukesh Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. for the Op No.3.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased one Air Conditioner of capacity 1.5 Ton (Two Star), Marka KAZE Plus of Hitachi Company for the sum of Rs.24,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.693 dt. 24.08.2017. It is alleged that just after few days of its purchase, the said A.C. was not working properly and the complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.17093003088 with the Ops. After 5/6 days, the mechanic of the company visited the premises of complainant and told that the compressor of said A.C. was not working properly and the same will be changed within a day or two days. After waiting lot, the complainant again lodged a complaint bearing No.17100604323 dt. 06.10.2017 with the Ops and the compressor of A.C. was replaced but the same is also not in working condition. The complainant requested the Ops several times to replace the said A.C. with the new one but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas initially Ops No.1 & 2 appeared but did not appear on 26.02.2019, so, Ops No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 26.02.2019. Op No.3 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the product in question and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint; that on receipt of service request, the technician of Op No.3 visited the place of the complainant and replaced the compressor, however, due to the best reason known by the complainant, the complainant was not satisfied with the services. Therefore, the technician asked the complainant to allow the technician to pick-up the machine to the workshop for observation. However, the complainant did not allow and demanded replacement of the entire A.C. which was not required as the same could have been cured with necessary maintenance. Hence, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the partiess and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased the A.C. in question for the sum of Rs.24,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.693 dt. 24.08.2017. According to the complainant, just after few days of its purchase, the said A.C. was not working properly and the complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.17093003088 with the Ops. After 5/6 days, the mechanic of the company visited the premises of complainant and told that the compressor of said A.C. was not working properly and the same will be changed within a day or two days. After waiting lot, the complainant again lodged a complaint bearing No.17100604323 dt. 06.10.2017 with the Ops and the compressor of A.C. was replaced but the same is also not in working condition. The complainant requested the Ops several times to replace the said A.C. with the new one but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application on 21.08.2019 for sending the A.C. for expert opinion and the said application was allowed by this Forum vide order dt. 21.08.2019. The expert namely Sh. Anil Kumar, Mechanic, Govt. I.T.I., Kaithal submitted his report Annexure-A in this Forum on 16.10.2019. We have perused the said report wherein the expert has mentioned that he checked the functioning of A.C. and found that the working of said A.C. was found not O.K. for use and cooling effect is nil due to compressor not working. So, from the said report of expert, it is clear that the A.C. was defective. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure C2. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte and Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A only and did not tender any other evidence. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. In such like circumstances, we find that the complaint filed by the complainant seems to be genuine and the Ops have sold the defective A.C. to the complainant. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective A.C. of the complainant with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide invoice No.693 dt. 24.08.2017 Annexure-C1. The complainant is also directed to deposit the old A.C. alongwith accessories with the Ops. However, it is made clear that if the said A.C. as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.24,000/- as the cost of A.C. alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization to the complainant. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:31.10.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
