BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 124 of 2015
Date of Institution : 13.07.2015
Date of Decision : 30.11.2016
Rakesh Kumar, aged about 40 years son of Shri Puran Chand, resident of House No.1114, Sector 20, HUDA, Part-II, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Anucool, Air Conditioner, shop no.14-15, Gandhi Market, Sirsa, District Sirsa Haryana through its Proprietor/ partner (Authorized Distributor of VOLTAS product).
2. Voltas Limited, Registered Office: Unitary Products Business Group, Voltas House, “A” Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 033 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.K.S.Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh.Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that on 3.5.2015 he had purchased Air Conditioner of voltas company Model 181-DYI for a sum of Rs.22,000/- from opposite party no.1 vide cash memo/bill No.453 dated 3.5.2015. The op no.1 had given guarantee of five years from the date of purchase. However, just after purchasing the air conditioner, the same is not working properly and it stopped cooling and even motor of air conditioner gives very high noise. The mechanic sent by op no.1 checked the air conditioner but could not repair it due to serious problem and assured to visit again for its repair but thereafter no one visited the house of complainant for repair of air conditioner. The complainant then visited op no.1 on many occasions with the request to repair the air conditioner and to remove defects and in the alternative, to replace the same but all in vain. The op no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also made complaints to the company on 10.6.2015 and on 13.6.2015 but to no effect and complainant has made several rounds to op no.1. On 20.6.2015, op no.1 sent mechanic/engineer who checked the air conditioner and removed it and placed in a side and after inspection, it came to know that there are serious manufacturing defects therein and the same are not in position to repair. Thereafter, complainant made several requests to the opposite parties to replace the air conditioner but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement pleading therein that whenever the complainant approached the ops vide the alleged complaints, the complainant was conveyed to produce the original bill regarding the said product and also to complete the documents as per the norms of the Company but complainant failed to produce the same and the complainant just in order to put the undue pressure has filed the frivolous complaint. The complaint is only outcome of egoist nature of complainant. However, the replying op is ready to redress the grievance of the complainant if he fulfills the norms/terms and conditions of the company and produce the original bill regarding the product in dispute. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. In evidence, complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill Ex.C2. Learned counsel for op no.2 made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.2 be read in evidence and they have not to lead any other evidence and closed the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The opposite party no.2 has simply and evasively averred that complainant has not provided the original bill to them and therefore, his grievance could not be redressed but the said assertion of the opposite party no.2 is not justified because even after filing of the present complaint the opposite party no.2 did not dare to inspect the air conditioner in question of the complainant despite the fact the copy of the bill is already on file. The complainant has made several complaints to both the opposite parties before filing of present complaint but in vain and ultimately he has to file the present complaint. The opposite party no.1 even did not bother to appear before this Forum rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. The complainant purchased the air conditioner in question on 3.5.2015 and alleged defects in the air conditioner since very beginning and filed the present complaint just after two months i.e. on 13.7.2015 and in absence of any checking report/ inspection report of opposite parties, it is to be presumed that air conditioner is having certain defects.
7. Keeping in view our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to inspect the air conditioner of the complainant through expert engineer of the company and if same is repairable then the opposite parties will repair the air conditioner in question after replacement of defective parts, if any free of costs. In case the air conditioner is not made defect free, then the opposite parties will replace the air conditioner with a new one or will refund the price of the air conditioner. We also direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment etc. including litigation expenses. This order should be complied by both the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.11.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
