Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/26/2020

Rajesh Kumar Pothal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- Voltas Limited - Opp.Party(s)

C.K. Mohanty, M.K. Badhei, K. Biswal and associates

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 26/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Rajesh Kumar Pothal

S/o- Late Bhikari Charan Pothal,

R/o-SRIT Colony, KNL2 D/4 Sambalpur,

At present Param arvind Enclaves, Block-B,

108 SRIT Colony, Sambalpur, PO Budharaja,

Ps- Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur.                                   ………………..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. Voltas Limited

Voltas House A, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,

Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033.

2. Voltas Limited.

B-15, 2nd Floor, Arihant Plaza, Opp. Omfed Office,

Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007.

3. M/S H.P Electronics, (Voltas authorised Service Centre)

At- Dash Complex, Bhudharaja, PO- Budharaja,

Ps- Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur.

4. M/S G.N. Electronics,

At- Bishop's House Ainthapali Road,

Sambalpur-768004.                                    …...……….. ….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :- Sri. C.K.Mohanty, Advocate, & Associates      
2. For the O.P.1, 2& 3         :- Sri. S.K.Sahu, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. 4                  :- None

 

Date Of Filing :06.10.2020,Date Of Hearing :30.08.2022, Date Of Judgement : 11.10.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that on dtd. 30.03.2016, the Complainant purchased a Voltas 1.5 ton 183 V.IYDC Invetor Cool Voltas Air Conditioner vide Sl. No. 4551937A16A001025 & Sl. No. 11994D15L000123 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- inclusive of all taxes from the OP No. 4vide Retail Invoice No. GN/5583/2015-16 with suppliers Reference No. Ch/3554 covered under warranty for a period of five years and after sale, the A.C was installed in the house of the Complainant by the OP No. 3. The OP No. 1 & 2 represents the Voltas Ltd., company and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the products of the said company. The OP No. 3 is the authorized service Centre and the OP No. 4 is the authorized dealer. The AC was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect, hence immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant, it was found not cooling properly, so the petitioner immediately drew the attention of the OP No. 4 at this the OP No.4 suggested the Complainant saying that it would take some time to adjust with the room temperatures and there will be no difficulty in cooling the room. After three months of its installation, the AC suffered a major breakdown and was again not cooling. Then the Complainant contacted the OP No. 4 and the OP No. 4 instructed the OP No. 3 to inspect the AC and to repair it. The OP No. 3 came to the house of the Complainant, inspected the AC, took up the repairing work and after repairing, the AC worked but not satisfactorily. The Complainant further demanded the OP No. 4 to replace the AC with new one, as the AC suffers inherent manufacturing defect, but the OP No. 4 asked Complainant to wait for some time and assured the Complainant that as the AC covered under warranty and if any defect found in future in the AC, he will replace it with a new one. Thereafter in the year 2017 again the AC was not cooling and the Complainant lodged a Complaint vide Complaint Regd. No. 17082103756. On this complaint the OP No. 3 undertook repairing work on realization of a service charge of Rs. 550/- which amounts to unfair trade practice. Even after the repairing, the AC was not cooling as it was defective. The Complainant made again a Complainant on 25^th May, 2019 vide Request No. 19052515602 to the OP No. 1 and requested the Ops for replacement of the compressor which was within the warranty period. Thereafter the AC did not work and was not giving proper cooling with E5 error which was intimated to OP No.3. The OP No. 3 accepted the complaint, responsed the service vide Request No. 19052515602. All the attempts made by the OP No. 3 to repair the AC was found futile and the fault in the AC could not be repaired. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the OP No. 1 by email on 27.12.2019. After receiving the mail, the OP No.1 informed that this case was transferred to Mr. Manoj Ku Sarangi, the Area service Manager of OP No. 2 to resolve the case with a new service request No. 20051004552. On getting the aforesaid information from the OP No. 1 the Complainant contacted the A.S.M. in presence of OP No. 3 on 30.12.2019 and the ASM informed that the PCB part of counter unit was out of order and the same to be replace under chargeable basis with a cost of Rs. 12,000/- and the Complainant was forced to agreed. Finding no other alternative and adamant and non-cooperative attitude of the Ops . On 17.05.2020 and 18.05.2020 the Complainant got SMS from TD-VOLTAS & BP-VOLTAS respectively that “ the Machine is beyond repair and the service request 20051004552 was cancelled”. After receiving the SMS, the Complainant asked the OP No. 2 on 18.05.2020 about the matter and the the OP No. 2 had clarified that the spare part was not available at the company warehouse and they were unable to resolve the case henceforth and offered the Complainant a buyback offer that the said AC will be taken back at Rs. 7,000/-. On this the Complainant asked them that after lingering the matter for about a year, how are giving a buyback offer of only Rs. 7,000/- rather they should refund the sale price of AC amounting to Rs. 45,000/- the actual price of the defective AC. The OP No. 2 after consulting with the Branch manager, gave proposal to pay Rs. 22,000/- on return of the AC and the Complainant refused to accept their proposal. Thereafter the Complainant served a legal notice to the Ops on dtd. 25.06.2020. The Ops received the notice and remained silent. The action of the Ops come under unfair trade practice/deficiency in service and the company has failed to maintain the quality of the AC during its manufacturing. As such the Ops are liable to pay back the price of AC with interest and compensate the Complainant as he has been deprived of using the AC for last four years.
2. The Written Statement of the OP No. 1 & 2 is that the complaint petition are partly true to the extent that a complaint was lodged vide No. 17082103756 dtd. 21.08.2017 and the O.P. No. 3 attended the call and provided necessary service by cleaning the air filter of AC. But so realization of service charge of Rs. 550/- is concerned, it is within the terms and conditions of the warranty policy of the Company i.e. labour charge would be borne by the customer after one year of purchase. A complaint was registered vide Request No. 19052515602 dtd. 25.05.2019 within the warranty period wherein the OP No. 3 replaced the compressor of the AC as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. A mail was sent by the Complainant on dtd. 27.12.2019 acknowledging the replacement of the compressor, but said that after couple of days of replacement of compressor the AC was not running with E5 error, which is totally false. It is true that service request number 20051004552 dtd. 10.05.2020 was registered by the service manager and OP No.3 provided necessary service by replacing the PCB. The OP No. 1& 2 are admitted about receipt of the legal notice of the Complainant. The Ops never neglected to provide adequate service to its valued customer whenever any request is login. The relief sought for is exaggerated one and based on false and frivolous complaint which is liable to be dismissed against the Ops.

The version of the OP No. 3 is that the OP No. 3 never attended any call at the instance of the shop of OP No. 4 rather attended a call after login of a complaint before the OP No. 1 & 2. A complain was lodged vide No. 17082103756 dtd. 21.08.2017 and the OP No. 3 attended the call and repaired the AC. But so far realization of service charge of Rs. 550/- is concerned, it is within the terms and conditions of the warranty policy of the Company i.e. labour charge would be borne by the customer after one year of purchase. A complaint was registered vide Request No. 19052515602 dtd. 25.05.2019 within the warranty period wherein the OP replaced the compressor of the AC. He admitted that a legal notice was received by him from the advocate of the Complainant. The OP No. 3 mentioned in his version that he never neglected to provide adequate service to its valued customer whenever any request is login. The reliefs sought for is exaggerated one and based on false and frivolous complain which is liable to be dismissed against the OP NO. 3.

The version of the O.P No. 4 is that the Complainant was purchased AC from him four year ago. In this products one year compressive+ 4 years compressor. All warranty provided by company through his authorised service centre as per company warranty policy. He is not liable for service. All service is provided by service centre. So he requested for withdrawal of his name in this case.

3. From the above it is found that the AC  purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect found from immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant and not cooling properly and the OPs not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period.

Accordingly issues are settled.

103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the OPs?
2. Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs ?
3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant a consumer of the OPs?

The Complainant purchased a Voltas 1.5 ton 183 V.IYDC Inverter Cool Voltas Air Conditioner vide Sl. No. 4551937A16A001025 & Sl. No. 11994D15L000123 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- inclusive of all taxes from the authorized dealer OP No. 4  vide Retail Invoice No. GN/5583/2015-16 with suppliers Reference No. Ch/3554 covered under warranty for a period of five years. The OP No. 1 & 2 represents the Voltas Ltd., company and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the products of the said company. The OP No. 3 is the authorized service Centre. So the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

          Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service of the OPs ?

The AC  purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect found immediately after its installation in the house of the Complainant and not cooling properly and the OP No. 1,2 and 3 not solved the problem and repaired properly within the warranty period. It is the duty of the OP No. 1, 2 and 3  to solve the problem as the OP No. 1 & 2 are the representatives of the Manufacturing company and the OP No. 3 is the authorized service centre. So they are jointly liable for deficiency in service. Whereas the OP NO. 4 is the authorized dealer. So he is not responsible for any manufacturing defect.

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief from the OPs?

From all the facts of the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OP No. 1, 2 & 3.

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on contest. The O.P No. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to replace the AC with a new AC or return the sale price of the AC of Rs. 45,000/- to the Complainant, Rs. 50,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 11^th day of Oct, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.

                 I agree,                                                                                              

 (Dr. R.K.Satapathy)                                                                                 (Shri. S.N.Tripathy)    

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                     MEMBER                                                                          

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.      

                                                               (Shri. S.N.Tripathy)          

                                                                   MEMBER