1.    This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 16.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.709 of 2009.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased 1.0 Ton Voltas Vertis plus Window AC 022821 for Rs.15500/- from OP No.3 i.e. Gupta Electric Company against invoice No.5654 dated 23.06.08.  The complainant was out of station from 27.06.08 to 22.07.08 because of holidays and when she came back, she started the AC but the AC started giving loud noise. The complainant contacted OP No.3 for the alleged defect in the A.C who advised her to contact OP No.2 i.e. Voltas Limited and the technician of OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and stated that the noise was due to looseness of window glasses. The complainant got checked the window glasses from the carpenter but the same problem was continued. The complainant made a number of complaints but the problem of loud noise in the AC was not rectified by OPs No.2 and 3. The complainant made written request on 18.10.2008 to OP No.2 for the change of A.C and similar request was also made through e-mail dated 29.01.2009 but the OPs failed to replace the AC. On the above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.     Reply was filed by the OPs in which the factum of purchase of AC by the complainant had not been denied.  It was pleaded that in the complaint the complainant mentioned the Job No.56 of August and 498 of September whereas the complainant had placed on record only job No.82 dated 13.11.2008. The job sheets available with OPs are 1449, 1668 and 1800 were duly signed by the complainant. It was pleaded that when any of electronic or electrical product is in operation, it makes the noise of motor/compressor. It was averred by the OPs that all the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended to and rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.  

5.    The District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction to OPs to replace the defective AC with a new one with the same model and make with fresh warranty of one year. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

6.       Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP i.e. M/s Voltas Limited. We have heard Sh.Sanjay Judge, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.Karamjit Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1 and carefully gone through the file. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. Hence, respondent No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.12.2009.   The main point for consideration before us is whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

7.    In the appeal, the appellant pleaded that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint after a lapse of almost one year and constant use of the product. The learned District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complaint was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties as the complainant has impleaded some Chief Executive Office or Senior Manager (Sales and Service) whereas no post exists in the office of appellant. The learned District Forum failed to appreciate the documents and facts on record as the complainant mentions a service job No.56 of August and job No. 498 of September, whereas a job No. 82 dated 13.11.200 has only appended with her complaint and job sheets bearing Nos.1449,1668 and 1800 duly signed by the respondent/complainant are showing different version. The appellant submitted that 1.0 Ton AC must have been installed in a much smaller dimension room and thus the operational noise would be little more than conventional 1.5 AC which is normally installed in a bigger room. The learned District Forum has also failed to appreciate the evidence on record led by the respondent/complainant who has appended a job card bearing No. 82 dated 13.11.2008 in which a complaint lodged is of compressor noise, whereas in the job sheet the respondent/complainant has signed the service report stating “Job carried out to my entire satisfaction”. The learned District Forum did not seek any expert evidence with regards to the functioning of the AC and it is always proper to seek expert report as applicable under law to ascertain the true facts of the case whereas no such expert opinion was sought by the learned District Forum. The learned District Forum directed the appellant to replace the defective AC with a new one along with compensation and costs of litigation as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of appellant who have promptly rendered after sales service to the respondent/complainant as and when the complaint was registered, to her entire satisfaction for the reasons best known to the respondent/complainant. Hence, it is prayed by the appellant that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside.

8.       After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1, we have come to the conclusion that the OPs have failed to remove the alleged defect i.e. loud noise in the AC. A perusal of the file shows that the complainant from the very beginning was complaining for the noise in the AC despite of the fact that the AC was checked a number of times by the OPs but OPs failed to rectify the defect in the AC so far. Hence, definitely there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the learned District Forum has rightly order for the replacement of the defective AC with a new one with the same model and make with fresh warranty of one year. While passing the order, the learned District Forum has relied upon the case titled as Sooraj Automobiles Limited Vs. Sadananda Sahu and another reported in II (2007) CPJ 130.

9.       In our view, the OP(s) is liable to replace the defective AC with a new one with the same model and make with fresh warranty of one year but on the other hand, we are of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is on the higher side and therefore, we reduce it to the tune of Rs.7,000/- as lumpsum. Hence, we direct the OP(s) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,000/- as lumpsum to the complainant. With these observations mentioned above, we partly allow the appeal of the appellant without any order as to costs.

10.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

18^th February, 2010.