Mr. Ashish Saraff v. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant purchased a Hitachi 1.5 Ton split AC (model RAC518 ETD/1.5) on 27.10.2013 from M/s Great Eastern Appliance Pvt Ltd, an authorized dealer of Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., for Rs.41,500/- including VAT. The AC was installed on 30.10.2013 but failed to provide the desired cooling effect from the date of installation. The complainant lodged a complaint with the company's customer care on 14.04.2014, after which company representatives inspected the AC and replaced PCB parts, but the issue persisted. Following unsuccessful attempts at resolution, the complainant sought mediation through the Consumer Affairs Department's mediation cell, where two meetings were held on 16.10.2014 and 05.11.2014. The company agreed to replace the AC, but the replacement unit provided was an old machine of two years, which the complainant refused to accept. The complainant proposed a refund, which the company rejected. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint seeking refund of Rs.41,500/- with 9% interest, compensation of Rs.35,000/- for harassment and mental agony, and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-. The company did not appear in the Forum, resulting in ex parte proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the pleadings, evidences, and submissions. It was an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the AC and it failed to function properly from installation. The company's engineers inspected the AC and confirmed the defect through measurements recorded in the Field Call Report, which the complainant's remarks corroborated. The company attempted to replace the AC, but the replacement was found to be an old machine, which the complainant rejected. The complainant's testimony and documentary evidence, including the purchase invoice, field report, and delivery challan, went unchallenged due to the absence of the opposite party. The court found the defect in the goods established and accepted the complainant's case, as the company did not dispute the claim or the relief sought. Thus, the court concluded that the complainant was entitled to the relief requested.

Holding and Implications

The complaint is allowed ex parte with costs against the opposite party.

The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 41,500/- to the complainant along with Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony, and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from communication of the order. Interest at 10% per annum will accrue on the entire sum until full payment is made. The complainant is directed to return the defective AC machine to the opposite party. No new legal precedent was set; the decision directly resolves the dispute between the parties based on admitted facts and unchallenged evidence.

Mr. Ashish Saraff v. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd.

Order No. 12 dt. 13/10/2017 Fact of the case according to the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased Hitachi RAC518 ETD/1.5 Ton split AC on 27.10.2013 from M/s Great Eastern Appliance Pvt Ltd, an authorized dealer of Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., 5/2 Russel street, Kolkata-700071 (o.p) against Invoice price of Rs.41,500/- including output vat @ 14.5% and the same was installed on 30.10.2013. But from date of installation, the AC machine had not been providing any desired level of cooling effect. Complainant then lodged a complaint in customer care of the company through complaint no.14041700174 dated 14.04.2014. The representative of the company inspected the AC machine and changed PCB parts but no tangible change of cooling effect had been observed by their men. The representative of customer care attended complaint booking twice but there was no fruitful result. O.ps customer care unit ultimately resorted to avoid in responding the call of the Hitachi consumer. Complainant knocked the door of the Consumer Affairs Departments mediation Cell of Kolkata Central Regional Office for amicable settlement of the consumer disputes. Two mediation meetings were arranged for mediation of the case and both the parties appeared on 16.10.2014 and 05.11.2014.Representative of the o.p.

agreed to replace the AC machine with new one and accordingly a machine had been arranged for replacement through delivery challan no.335 dated 29.10.2014 of Hitachi Home & Life Solutions India Ltd but complainant observed that it was an old machine of two years and refused to accept it apprehending of taking over possession of new trouble through the machine dispatched on 29.10.2014. Both the parties again appeared before the Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs but failed to attain to any solution. Complainant submitted a proposal of returning back the money but o.p. disagreed to refund the money back to the complainant.

Finding no solution out of the mediation process complainant lodged this complaint seeking direction upon the o.p. for returning back of Rs.41,500/- with 9% p.a. till final payment along with compensation of Rs.35,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

PR & TR shows that notice had been served upon o.p, but the o.p. did not appear in the Forum for participation in the proceedings. So, the case had been proceeded exparte against the o.p.

On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided: Whether there was any defect in the goods sold by the company ; Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

We have gone through the petition of complaint, pleadings of the party and evidences in particular. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased Hitachi 1.5 Ton AC on 27.10.2013 from M/s Great Eastern Appliance Pvt Ltd, an authorized dealer of Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. against consideration of Rs.41,500/- and the same was installed on 30.10.2013. But from date of installation it had not been functioning well. The representative of the company inspected the AC machine and changed PCB parts but no tangible change in creating cooling effect had been observed. Complainant knocked the door of the Consumer Affairs Departments mediation Cell of Kolkata Central Regional Office for amicable settlement of the consumer disputes. Two mediation meetings were arranged for mediation of the case.

Representative of the o.p. agreed to replace the AC machine with new one and accordingly a machine had been arranged for replacement through delivery challan no.335 dated 29.10.2014 but complainant observed that it was an old machine and refused to accept it.

It is also an admitted fact that o.p. adopted on the spot inspection of the Hitachi AC machine on 13.06.2014 by the engineers of the company and recorded the relevant measurement in the Field Call Report against the call of the complainant (customer no.749917) wherein the customer recorded his remarks as Room Temp is 31.8 degree centigrade when the machine temperature is 17.5 degree centigrade; Complaint still pending . The remarks made by the complainant were in consonance with the measurements noted by the engineers on spot in the Field Call Report and it was noted in presence of the writer (Engineer) of the Field Call Report.

In order to prove the case the complainant sworn an affidavit of evidence in support of the contention of the complaint and filed the documents in support of his claim including the photocopies of Tax Cash Memo no.TC/CM/07227/13-14 dtd 27.10.2013, Field Call Report against call no.14060904499 dated 13.06.2014 and delivery challan no. 335 dated 29.10.2014.

Due to unchallenged testimony of the complaint there is no scope to disbelieve the submission of the complainant and therefore, it should be accepted and necessary order is to be passed accordingly.

Considering the submissions of the complainant and on perusal of the materials on record we find the complainant purchased the AC machine which remained practically defunct from the date of installation for the purpose of creating any cooling effect according to the report of the engineer of the company. Thus, there was defect in the goods (AC) and that had been admitted by the company and the company tried to replace the AC in question with another one. On the basis of the said evidences on record and since no challenge has been made by the o.p. to controvert the demand of the complainant we, therefore, have no other alternative but to accept the case of the complainant. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly covering all points.

Hence, ordered.

that the case no. 224/2015 is allowed ex-parte with cost against the o.p. The o.p is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 41,500/- (Rupees forty-one Thousand five hundred) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

Complainant is directed to return the AC Machine in question to the o.p.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sk. Abul Answar] MEMBER

CC/224/2015

Mr. Ashish Saraff v. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Mr. Ashish Saraff v. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd.

Comments