BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.289 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.08.2014

Date of Decision :16.01.2015

Ashwani Kumar aged about 33 years son of Vinod Kumar R/o Moh.No.10, H.No.19, Jalandhar Cantt-144005.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. F.R. Electronics, 9/61, Hardyal Road, Near State Bank of Patiala, Jalandhar Cantt, through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. Voltas Pvt.Ltd, Upper Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

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

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person

Sh.Saurabh Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that on 24.6.2014 the complainant purchased a Voltas (Split) AC, Model 185 from opposite parties No.1 for Rs.34800/- vide bill No.1004 dated 24.6.2014. Within warranty period various defects arose in the above said AC. At first its cooling system failed to work, then its outdoor fan stopped running after operation of 5-7 minutes. The complainant went to opposite party No.1 and brought into his notice the above said faults. The opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to contact opposite party No.2 for rectification of above said defects. So, the complainant lodged a complaint with opposite party no.2. On 17.7.2014 a mechanic of opposite party No.2 came to check the AC. After checkup, he told the complainant that the fault has been rectified but the defect remained the same. On 2.8.2014 the complainant again reported for the same defect to opposite party No.2. The opposite party no.2 has written the complaint vide their No.14080201894 and sent a message to complainant that their mechanic would reach the complainant within 2-3 days but no mechanic came to rectify the fault. On 8.8.2014 the complainant sent Email to opposite party No.2. In response to this Email, the opposite party No.2 replied that the defect would be removed from AC within 1-2 days. Then on same day at about 4.00 PM the opposite party phoned the complainant from their phone No.01815016905 that the AC would be replaced within 2 to 7 days. But after that neither any telephone call made by opposite party No.2 nor any mechanic came to rectify the fault. Again on 15.8.2014 the complainant sent the Email to opposite party No.2 but no person came to rectify the fault. On 19.8.2014 a mechanic of opposite parties reached the complainant and checked the AC. After checkup, he told the complainant that its one part is defective which is liable to be replaced but the same is not available with company and asked the complainant to make direct connection of fan which the complainant refused. Till date the said AC is out of order and the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defects. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the AC. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that AC was working properly during the alleged period and there was no problem in the working of the AC. The only problem was that the display of the AC showing the temperature (Degree/Celsius) was not working properly and the engineer of the company was willing to replace the display with a new one but the complainant was adamant and refused to allow the engineer to replace the display and insisted on replacing the AC with a new one. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith copy of document Ex.D1 and evidence of opposite parties closed by order.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the Split AC in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 24.6.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.34800/-. According to the complainant, soon after purchase and during warranty period various defects arose in the above said AC and it fail to give proper cooling and further outdoor fan stopped running after operation of 5-7 minutes. According to the complainant he reported the above defects to opposite parties but they failed to rectify the same. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties is that the complainant made complaint on 2.8.2014 and on 8.8.2014 the engineer of Voltas Company visited at the place of the complainant to rectify the problem but the air conditioner was working in proper condition and there was no working problem in it. Further according to the opposite parties, the only problem was there in display of the air conditioner i.e PCB fault i.e the display of the air conditioner was not working and was not depicting the exact temperature. Further according to the opposite parties, the engineer ordered a new PCB from Chandigarh to replace the defective one but when engineer revisited the complainant on 24.8.2014 to replace the old PCB with new one but the complainant refused to allow him to do so and insisted to replace the entire air conditioner with new one. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. The complainant has not produced any service job sheet. During warranty period, the liability of the opposite parties is to repair the product or to replace the defective part. There is no reliable evidence on record from the side of the complainant to show that there is any manufacturing defect in the AC. He has not examined any expert witness to prove the same. The opposite parties have placed on record service report Ex.D1 wherein date of visit is mentioned as 8.8.2014 and fault found is mentioned as PCB fault. On this job sheet or service report, there is endorsement that revisit on 24.8.2014 but party refused to repair the unit.

7. In view of above circumstance, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to repair the AC of the complainant by replacing the defective part, if need be within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order free of cost. However, due to admitted defect in the AC, the complainant has to face inconvenience for which he is entitled to compensation. So, complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.01.2015 Member President