Hitachi Home And Life Solutions (India) Ltd vs ROOP CHAND

THIS order shall decide two revision petitions detailed above. There is delay of 36 days in filing the revision petition No. 1795 of 2012 and 28 days in revision petition No. 1797 of 2012. In the applications of condonation of delay, the following same excuse has been made in para No. 3, which runs as follows: "That the delay of 34 days has occurred in filing of this petition because of problem in the computer which got crashed and, therefore, the data was not accessable due to which the delay of 34 days has occurred for filing the revision petition. " "That the delay of 30 days has occurred in filing of this petition because of problem in the computer which got crashed and, therefore, the data was not accessable due to which the delay of 30 days has occurred for filing the revision petition. "

THE above said explanation without any proof does not constitute the sufficient cause. The Advocate was well aware of the fact that the State Commission has passed the order against him. He should not have lost any time to file the revision petitions immediately. It must be borne in mind that Consumer Protection Act prescribes its own limitation. It is different from Limitation Act. The Consumer Protection Act also prescribes summary procedure for which no time should be permitted to be wasted, otherwise the purpose of Consumer Protection Act shall stand defeated. This contention is supported by the following authorities. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora ".

IN a recent authority, Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., in V (2010) SLT 790=III (2010) CLT 201 (SC)=Civil Appeal No. 1166/2006, decided on 8.7.2010, in which it was held that: "The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. "

BOTH the revision petitions are barred by time. We have also perused the cases on merits. The case of the complainant that he purchased two split Air-Conditioners of Hitachi Make dated 6.4.2010 for a consideration of Rs. 29,900 and for Rs 30,000 respectively. After about 20 days from the date of purchase, the Air-Conditioners did not work properly. The complainant made several visits to the opposite parties but to no avail. The opposite parties filled-up gas in the Air-Conditioners and charged a sum of Rs. 1,800 during the warranty period. Consequently, he filed the present complaint before the District Forum, wherein, it was prayed that the opposite parties should be directed to replace the Air-Conditioners immediately or to refund the price of the Air-Conditioners along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment. Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for deficiency of service, harassment, mental agony and unfair trade practice besides, a sum of Rs. 11,000 on account of litigation-expenses were also claimed. It was also alleged that the Air-Conditioners were having manufacturing defects.

LEARNED District Forum came to the conclusion that the Air-Conditioners were not working on account of defective installation or by not using of gas pipe, etc. Cooling mainly consists with the compressor and with its pipe. The District Forum directed the OPs to repair the Air-Conditioners within 15 days including the replacement of compressor or any part and the gas wire, etc. and to refund Rs. 1,800 which they had charged for refilling during warranty period. The District Forum directed the OPs to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant for not immediately attending the complaint.

THE State Commission dismissed the appeals in limine. Before us, no argument was raised by the Counsel for the petitioner. In the revision, petition it is explained that the Split Air-Conditioners were installed by some local dealer, who carried it out in an improper way. The authorized persons of the petitioner immediately checked the Air-Conditioners in question and found that the copper pipe was of under size. The size of copper pipe in the split AC must be 3/4 '' '', but the copper pipe used therein of a size of 1/2 '' ''. Again it was also found that the gas pipe and material used for its installation were of sub-standard. It is admitted that the gas was refilled. The case of the petitioner was bolstered with an affidavit of Sh. Rishi Pal, Hitachi Trainee, Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Ltd., Gurgaon.

WE are unable to locate substance in these arguments. First of all it is difficult to fathom as to why did the opposite parties ask the local people to install the Air-conditioners, particularly when they were paid for it. Secondly, all these allegations are not substantiated by any evidence. The case of OPs is that Mr. Rishi Pal and Mr. Rahul Sharma had visited the premises in question on 25.8.2011 at 9.30 a.m. Their report was not placed on the record. The job/hob card, which allegedly was not signed by the complainant, also did not see the light of the day. The question of taking extra fee for gas could not have possibly arisen. This was a warranty period. It clearly goes to show that the gas had leaked immediately. It is also noteworthy that the State Commission has observed that installation fees had already been charged by the OPs as per the instructions mentioned on the back side of the bills, therefore, deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice stand established on the record.

THE order passed by the Fora below cannot be faulted. Both the revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.