Haryana

Karnal

CC/271/2019

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vijay Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Rana

28 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 271 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.15.05.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:28.09.2022

 

Harpal Singh son of Shri Durga Dass, resident of House no. 1188, village Nigdhu, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Vijay Sales, 3384, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi through its proprietor.

2.     M/s Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited c/o Boxman Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 704, Tower-2, Jaypee Apartment, plot no.2, Sector-22 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

3.     M/s Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd. 802-A and 802-B Tower-2, 8^th floor Konnectus Bhavbhuti Marg, near Minto Bridge, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Ravinder Rana, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Rinku Kajal, counsel for the OP no.1.

Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a Hitachi company air conditioner bearing sr. no. Hitachi AC RAW511KUD (5 star) IT WIN amounting to Rs.24000/- from OP no.1, vide tax invoice no.307-R-SI dated 27.05.2018. After sometime of purchasing the said air conditioner, it was creating cooling problem. Complainant approached the OP no.1 and OP no.1 advice to contact the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company and accordingly complainant contacted the OP no.2 and lodged the complaint no.18062900956 dated 29.06.2018.  The official of OP no.2 after enquiry told that this is manufacturing defect and OP no.2 replace the same. After installing the new air conditioner, the said new air conditioner again creating cooling problem then immediately complainant contacted the OPs and lodged the complaint no.19050602128 dated 06.05.2019, 19050602128 dated 07.05.2019, 19050602128 dated 08.05.2019, 190501109008 dated 11.05.2019 and after checking, the employee of the OPs told that there is manufacturing defect.  After lapse of one month no engineer was came at the site then complainant again registered a complaint with OP no.2, then OP no.2 says that the OP no.2 is unable to change the air conditioner and they only replace the same after taking cost of new air conditioner. Thereafter, complainant made many complaints to the OPs to replace the air conditioner but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is a dealer, if the complaint is received from the customer then every dealer informed the manufacturing company and he has right to check and removed the defect. OP no.1 is the dealer of the OPs no.2 and 3 who is manufacturer company i.e. Hitachi India Private Ltd. and service centre. It is further pleaded that the warranty is for the removable of defect of the product and replacement of parts is chargeable and it is the manufacturer who is liable for warranty of any product. OP no.1 is not liable for warranty of the product as alleged by the complainant. If there is any defect in the air conditioner and deficiency in service then it is liability of the manufacturer company/Hitachi Air Conditioner Pvt. Limited and service centre. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 20.11.2019 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/A, copy of bill/tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of bill of Boxman Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Ex.C2, copy of bill of Johnson Controls- Hitachi Air Conditioning India Limited Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 10.03.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sonu Kumar Singh, Authorized representative Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 15.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a Hitachi company air conditioner amounting to Rs.24000/- from OP no.1. After sometime of its purchase, it was creating cooling problem. Complainant approached the OPs and lodged the complaint. On enquiry, the official of OP no.2 pointed out there is manufacturing defect and requested to replace the air conditioner. Despite of various visits and complaints, OPs failed to resolve the problem in the AC in question and then complainant requested the OPs to replace the same but OP no.2 did not do so and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 is the dealer of the OPs no.2 and 3, who is manufacturer company and service centre. The warranty is only for the removable of defect of the product and replacement of parts is chargeable and it is the manufacturer who is liable for warranty of any product. OP no.1 is not liable for warranty of the product as alleged by the complainant. If there is any defect in the air conditioner and deficiency in service then it is liability of the manufacturer company and service centre and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, complainant has purchased the air conditioner in question from the OP no.1. It is also admitted that the defected air conditioner has been replaced by the OPs with new one.

12.           As per the version of complainant, the replaced air conditioner in question is also having cooling problem and in this regard he made many complaints to the OPs but OPs failed to resolve the problem from the AC. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. On the other hand as per version of the OP no.1, OP no.1 is not liable for warranty of the product as alleged by the complainant. If there is any defect in the air conditioner then it is liability of the manufacturer company and service centre.  To rebut the version of the complainant, OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte. Hence, the version of the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It has been proved from the record that the problem had occurred in the replaced AC from the very beginning and the AC is defective one and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant within warranty period. Complainant has been deprived of the basic purpose of purchasing the product. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to replace the AC in question with new one of the same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear if the AC of the same make and model is not available with the OPs no.2 and 3, then the OPs will return the cost of AC i.e Rs.24,000/- to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3300/- for the litigation expense. However, complainant is directed to handover the old AC to the OPs. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.09.2022                                                                      

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member