CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/589/09

          Date of Institution:-   25.08.2009

          Order Reserved on:- 06.11.2023

                          Date of Decision:-     23.02.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Pratima Srivastav

W/o Shri V. Shrivastav

R/o J-22, Saket,

New Delhi - 110017

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Electrolux After Sales Service through its acquirer M/s Videocon

201-203, Green Park Main,

Aurobindo Marg,

New Delhi – 110016

2. The C.E.O.

Videocon Industries Ltd.

14 kms Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road,

Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan,

Dist. Aurangabad – 431105

        .…..Opposite Parties

ORDER

​Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 19.08.2004 she has purchased one Electrolux air conditioner from M/s Akash Enterprises. The compressor of the AC was giving trouble which was replaced. The replaced compressor also did not work properly which was also replaced on 13.07.2007. There was no cooling in the AC so she contacted M/s Cool Point, Authorised service centre but that was no longer the service certre of the company. She searched the number of Electrolux from the internet and registered the complaint on 10.06.2009 and 12.06.2009. One AR of the OPs visited on 15.06.2009 and told that compressor needs to be replaced. On 25.06.2009, she was telephonically informed that compressor will be replaced within 3-4 days after getting it from Aurangabad. The compressor has not been replaced till date. Hence, this complaint.

2. OP-1 i.e. Akash Enterprises was deleted from the array of parties.

3. OP-2 & 3 have jointly filed the reply to the effect that complainant wants to get monetary benefit from them by concealing true facts from the Commission. There is limited warranty of 12 months from the date of the purchase product during which defective product or parts can be replaced provided the consumer does not breach the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant has purchased the AC in question. The limited warranty document is not filed by the complainant. On 10.06.2009, the service engineer visited the premises and found the AC in a working condition but the complainant was adamant for the replacement of the AC and threatened to file the consumer case. On 11.07.2009, the service engineer again visited the premises of the complainant but complainant again insisted for the replacement of the AC. The allegations are false and frivolous.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments of the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the complaint.
5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of the complaint and placed reliance on documents Annexure A-1 to A3.

7. The OP-2 and 3 have filed the affidavit of Sh. Mohan Lal in evidence and wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.

8. The perusal of the order sheet dated 01.02.20123 show that compressor of the AC was to be replaced by the OP. The order sheet dated 29.08.2012 shows that OP has changed the compressor but fresh warranty was not issued. The complainant has filed the fresh address of OP-1 and 3 and they were to be served to ascertain whether fresh warranty has been issued or not as apparent from order sheet dated 14.02.2013. OP-2 & 3 were served and but did not put the appearance as a result they were proceeded ex-parte and case was inadvertently filed the ex-parte and ex-parte evidence filed by the complainant. There was no need for this evidence as evidence was already led by the complainant, OP-2 and 3. This ex-parte evidence is not taken into consideration. The ex-parte order was set aside by Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 20.04.2015.

9. The parties have not put their appearance and accordingly on 06.11.2023 the case was reserved for order by keeping in view its age.

10. The purchase of AC by the complainant is nowhere in dispute. The compressor was not giving proper cooling as a result same has been replaced twice till 13.07.2007.

11. The compressor was not giving cooling effect so complaint was made to the OPs to replace the compressor.

12. The version of OP-2 & 3 is that service engineer has visited on 10.06.2009 and 11.07.2009 to the premises of the complainant to check the AC but complainant insisted for the replacement of AC. The OP-2 & 3 did not file any service report on record to support the fact that service engineer has visited on 10.06.2009 and 11.07.2009 to the premises of the complainant to check the AC so the version of OP-2 & 3 to the effect cannot be relied upon.

13. The perusal of the order sheet dated 01.02.2012 shows that OP-2 & 3 have agreed that compressor will be changed as per prayer of the complainant. The order sheet dated 29.08.2012 shows that OPs have changed the compressor but warranty has not been issued.

14. The written arguments filed by the complainant shows that compressor has not been changed. On 07.02.2012, the AC was taken for the replacement of compressor to M/s Ruchika Services, Authorised service centre of OP but compressor was not changed and AC is with said service station.

15. The OPs agreed to change the compressor meaning thereby that compressor was not working as alleged by the complainant. The admission on the part of the OP to change the compressor shows that compressor was not giving cooling effect that is why OPs have agreed to change the same.

16. The compressor has not been changed as per complainant. The OPs should have placed on record the service report from M/s Ruchika Services i.e. Authorised Service centre that compressor has been changed. No such document has been filed by the OPs. It shows that compressor has not been changed. The non-replacement of compressor despite having defects tantamount to deficiency in service.

17. The fresh direction to replace the compressor will not be in the ends of justice keeping in view the fact that OPs have not replaced the compressor despite the directions of 2012.

18. Hence, in view of our discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OPs shall jointly or severally refund the purchase amount i.e. Rs.16,500/- of the AC in question along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of the order till its realization. The complainant has undergone mental agony so he is entitled for compensation on this score also. The OPs shall jointly or severally pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation. The OPs shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which complainant is entitled for interest @10% p.a. on compensation from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 23.02.2024.