IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1. Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,
2. Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3. Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 20th day of January, 2015.
C. C. Case No.38 of 2014.
Kausalya Mahanta, W/O Rajeswar Mahanta
Vill.- Dhabalgiri (J.K.Road) , P.O-Sobara
P.S- Jajpur Road , Dist.-Jajpur. …… ……....Complainant . .
(Versus)
1.Dew Point , Authorised Sales and services plot No.1530,Dhabalgiri
At.-Dhabalgiri, P.O/P.S. .Jajpur Road, Dist.- jajpur.
2.Voltas Ltd, A-43,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate ,Mathura Road
New Delhi, 110044. 3.VOLTAS LTD,B-15,2nd floor, Arihant, plaza, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
………………..Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri S.C.Rana, Advocate.
For the Opp.Parties No.1,2 and 3: Sri U.N. Sathpathy, Sri S.K.Behera, Advocates.
Date of order: 20. 01. 2015.
SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, MEMBER .
This is a dispute which has been filed from the side of the petitioner alleging unfair trade practice due to supply of tampered A.C from the side of the O.Ps.
The fact lies in the narrow campus is that the petitioner had purchased one VOLTAS make window type Air Conditioner such as 1.5 T.R platinum SS bearing S.L No.4011039A 12G003205 on 05.04.2013 at the cost of Rs.28,000/- from O.P no.1. Her further allegation is that the O.P.no.2 is manufacturer and O.P no.3 is a whole seller of the goods. She alleged that the O.P no.1 had given her warranty for a period of one year for the above said A.C.
That the petitioner alleged that after purchase of the said A.C she noticed at her residence that there is a whole on the back side of the A.C where one sticker has been pasted.
After that she registered her complain to the manufacturer company’s customer care vide complain no.13Ap0910324 on dt.10.04.13 as well as informed the O.P no.1. Her further allegation is that the service engineer of O.Ps. attend her complaint and told her that the pipe / tube has been brazed . Thereafter in the evening the O.P informed the petitioner that only defective spare can be replaced . But the petitioner demanded to replace the whole tampered Air Conditioner or return the price paid by her. She further alleged that she again and again has complained to the O.Ps. vide E.mail i.e on 11.04.13 ,24.04.13 and 07.05.13 etc and also has visited the show room of O.P no.1 several times who lastly refused to replace the A.C and did not solve the matter.
In view of the above narrated situation finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute in this Fora for appropriate relief with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to replace a new A.C or to return Rs.28,000/- towards cost of the A.C along with to award compensation of Rs.6,000/- .
After appearance the O.Ps. have filed their joint written version and subsequently written argument where the O.Ps. have taken the following pleas that :-
- The dispute is liable to be dismissed against the O.Ps. since that the complaint petition is defective for mis-joinder of parties. That there was no cause of action to bring this proceeding. Further in the written version the O.P no.1 denied to have sold a VOLTAS make window type A.C such as 1.5 TR platinum 5S bearing SL No.401103A129003205 which has not been manufactured by the O.P no.1 and 2 at any point of time . But in the written argument though the O.Ps. have denied that they sold / manufactured the said A.C on the other hand have mentioned the seriel no of alleged A.C as -4011039A12G003205.
- The O.P no.1 has admitted has sold one A.C of VOLTAS make window type such as -1.5 TR platinum 5S bearing SL No.4011039A12G003205 on 05.04.2013 to the complaint and provide warranty one year from the date of sale i.e on 05.04.2013. The complainant never made any complain regarding defect of the A.C before the O.Ps. within the warranty period regarding manufacturing defect which valid up to 04.04.2013. So the O.Ps are no way responsible for manufacturing defect because the alleged A.C of the petitioner is not purchased from O.P no.1 since the alleged A.C seems is a different one . Further the petitioner has filed the complaint before this Fora after expiry of 26 days expiry of warranty period which barred by limitation. So the complaint petition is not maintainable and be dismissed with exemplary cost .
On the date of hearing the O.Ps. were absent on call. We heard the argument from the side of the petitioner . Perused the record along with annexed relevant documents filed from both the sides and after our observations as stated below :-
- It is cristal clear that the petitioner purchased a VOLTAS make window type A.C such as 1.5 TR platinum 5S bearing SL No.4011039A12G003205 at the cost of Rs.28,000/- from O.P no.1 vide retail invoice No. DP/JJPR/RI/13-14/013by O.P no.1. The copy of invoice which are filed by the petitioner as well as O.Ps. clearly go to establish that there is no question of difference in between the alleged defective A.C and the A.C sold by O.P no.1 on 05.04.2013 though the petitioner has mentioned the wrong model number in the complain petition which is a tropical mistake .
- After purchased the A.C, the petitioner noticed that there is a whole on the said new A.C where one sticker has been pasted (photo copy of the said whole has been filed by the petitioner ) . Immediately there after the petitioner lodged her complaint before VOLTAS customer care vide complain no.13AP0910324 dt.10.04.13. Her further allegation that the service engineer of O.Ps. has attended the complaint and admitted that the pipe / tube has been cracked . But O.Ps. denied to replace the tampered A.C. Thereafter the petitioner made correspondences with the O.Ps. through E-mail i.e on 11.04.13,24.04.13 and 07.05.13 (photo copy of the correspondence mail copy annexed ) and visited the show room of O.P no.1 who lastly refused to attend the complain and replace the A.C .
- On the other hand the O.Ps. categorically stated that they have not sold the alleged A.C and no such complain is received during warranty period against the A.C sold by the O.P no.1. Further there is no single piece of paper filed from the side of the O.Ps. that what step they have taken regarding the complain no.13AP0910324 dt.10.04.2013 lodged from the side of the petitioner. In the written version the O.Ps. have also silent about the above complain. In this context after verification of all the relevant documents filed from both the side our considered view is that there is unfair trade practice on the part of O.P no.1 for selling a tampered A.C to the petitioner. This is nothing but clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. in not providing essential service during warranty period and taking plea that the said product has not been sold/ manufactured by them. Accordingly the facts clearly go to establish that the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable for the alleged occurrence. The fact and circumstance of the case, and the photographs filed by the complainant itself prove that the O.Ps. have sold a repaired A.C having a sticker on it to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice. Accordingly we allowed the dispute against the O.Ps .
O R D E R
In the net result the dispute is allowed against the O.Ps and we directed the O.Ps. to replace the alleged tampered A.C with a new A.C as same make / same model or return the price of Rs.28,000/-( cost of A.C paid by the petitioner) and we also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) to the petitioner which will be paid by the O.Ps. to the petitioner within one month after receipt of the order ,failing which the total amount of Rs.33,000/- will carry 12% interest per annum from the date of filing the dispute till its realization .
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of January ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Pitabas Mohanty)
(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar ) Member.
President. Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Miss Smita Ray) (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)
Member. Member.
