BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 122 of 2015                                                                         

                                                           Date of Institution         :    08.07.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    15.02.2017. 

Jaswant Singh, aged 52 years, son of Shri Mohan Singh, resident of village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Anand Udyog, Janta Bhawan Road, Opp. Old Stadium, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor.

2. Voltas Limited, Registered Office: Unitary Products Business Group Voltas House, ‘A” Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai- 400 033 through its Manager.

 ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………..PRESIDENT

                   SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……. MEMBER.     

Present:       Sh. P.K. Berwal,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. J.N. Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

       Sh. Sandeep Gaba, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

          Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a split  air conditioner of voltas from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.29,500/- vide bill No.3687 dated 7.3.2011. The op no.1 had given five years warranty against all manufacturing defects in the air conditioner. As alleged after one month of its purchase, the same started giving trouble and used to shut down of its own without giving proper cooling. Thereafter, complainant lodged a complaint with the care centre of op no.2 at Sirsa upon which air conditioner was repaired by care center. In the first year of its purchase, the compressor of AC had burnt which was changed/ replaced by ops for which a sum of Rs.5,000/- was charged from him. But even thereafter, the AC did not work properly. In the next season, the compressor of the AC went dead stop, which was got repaired by him at his own expenses. It is further alleged that in the last year i.e. 2014, the compressor did not work. The complainant lodged complaint with the op no.1 and after one month compressor was changed. However, after only one overnight use of newly changed compressor, the gas got leaked. The complainant then lodged complaint with op no.1 which got filled the gas and charged for the same. But after two-three days of functioning, the gas again got leaked and there was no cooling. The complainant lodged a complaint with the op no.1 but op no.1 refused to attend the complaint and stated that if he is ready to bear expenses, then his complaint will be attended and refused to repair the same within warranty period. Then he got filled the gas in the compressor at his own expenses through op no.1. It is further alleged that now in the summer season of 2015, the air conditioner did not work. On complaint to op no.1, op no.1 stated that air conditioner will be repaired only at the expenses of complainant and not on the basis of warranty. The air conditioner is still in defective condition and is not giving proper cooling and he is unable to make the best use of the same for which he has incurred such a huge amount. There is manufacturing defect in the air conditioner and same requires full replacement. The complainant has approached the ops and requested them to either replace the air conditioner or to refund its price but they did not pay any heed to the same. Hence, this complaint.

2.                  On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action, suppression of material facts, time barred, estoppal, jurisdiction and that complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties as local care centre of op no.2 being a necessary party has not been impleaded as a op in the complaint whereas although op no.1 is not a necessary party but it has been impleaded in the complaint. It has been submitted that true facts of the case are that so far as complete warranty of the AC in question is concerned, the same was only for a period of one year and not for five years as wrongly claimed by complainant. The warranty for five years was only for compressor which was provided to the complainant. However, at the same time it is submitted that normal wear and tear of the AC during its operation is not at all covered under warranty and complainant has to bear the expenses of the same. It is further submitted that whenever any complaint was lodged by complainant with op no.1, the same was got promptly attended. Moreover, so far as charging for filling gas in the AC by answering op no.1 is concerned, it is submitted that leakage and filling of gas is a normal/ general wear and tear which is not covered under warranty, as such, the charges for the same were rightly obtained by op no.1. The op no.1 was legally entitled to ask the complainant to bear expenses for the same but due to reluctance of complainant to do so, there was no alternate for op no.1 but to refuse to entertain the alleged complaint of complainant. The complainant never approached the op no.1 in the summer season of 2015 and has concocted a false story. There is no expert report on file. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.

3.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit Ex.RW1 and affidavit Ex.RW2.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                The complainant purchased the air conditioner in question from opposite party no.1 on 7.3.2011 and has filed the present complaint on 8.7.2015 i.e. after more than four years of purchase of air conditioner. The full warranty of the air conditioner was for one year and there was five years warranty of compressor. The complainant has not placed on file any receipt of Rs.5,000/- allegedly paid by him for replacement of compressor in the first year of purchase of air conditioner. He has also not placed on file any other receipts for alleged repairs got done by him at his own expenses. There is no expert opinion on the file to prove any manufacturing defect in the air conditioner in question. It seems that main grievance of the complainant is regarding charging for filling gas and according to ops leakage and filling of gas is a normal/general wear and tear which is not covered under warranty. It is not proved on record that gas leaked due to manufacturing defect in the compressor. So, complainant has failed to prove his case.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated: 15.2.2017.                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.