DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st October, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President (I/C)<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member <br /> C.C.No.145/2006<br /> <br /> O.V.Viswambaran,<br /> Ayurjyothi Ayurveda Hospital,<br /> Kavuvattom,<br /> Cherpulassery. - Complainant <br /> Vs<br /> 1.Freon Engineers,<br /> Prasanthi Towers,<br /> Kalmandapam, Palakkad.<br /> <br /> 2.M/s.Voltas Ltd.,<br /> Vidyanikethan Annex,<br /> Providence Road,<br /> Ernakulam, Kochi.<br /> <br /> 3.Voltas Ltd.<br /> Cooling Appliances Business Division,<br /> Voltas House,<br /> A, Dr.Baba Sahib Ambedkar Road,<br /> Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 033. - Opposite parties <br /> O R D E R<br /> Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President (I/C) <br /> The complainant herein had purchased a 0.8 ton Split A/c of Voltas Company from 1st opposite party, the dealer of 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer, on 23.07.2005 for Rs.17,000/- and the same was installed by 1st opposite party. Complainant submits that after six months of installation the unit was not functioning properly and stopped its function subsequently. Complainant alleges that though the problem has been brought to the notice of <br /> <br /> 1st opposite party they never turned to attend the same for two months. Finally on 18.04.2006 1st opposite party's technician came and he had taken the indoor unit of the A/c to their workshop telling that it would be returned after necessary repairs. Further the technician told that malfunctioning is due to the defect in compressor. Complainant alleges that inspite of repeated requests made by him the opposite party neither intimated the defect as well as nature of repairs to be conducted nor returned the A/c unit. So he caused a notice to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties requesting them to conduct repairs and or replace the unit. But so far the opposite parties had not sent any reply and also not repaired and returned the unit or replaced the same. <br /> <br /> Complainant submits that the opposite parties had guaranteed to replace the set, free of charge if defects occurs within a period of 12 months from the date of purchase and also given 5 years of warranty to repair or replace the compressor due to any malfunctioning. Complainant alleges that he purchased the A/c on 22.7.05 and the same stopped its functioning within six months and the matter was informed to the 1st opposite party immediately. Opposite parties had taken the unit for repairs on 18.4.06. It is alleged in the complaint that the non functioning of the unit was due to the defect and faulty materials or poor workmanship of the opposite parties and their employees. According to the complainant he is entitled to get replacement or get it repaired at free of cost. The complainant further alleges that since the unit was stopped its functioning within six months of purchase the said unit was a defective one even at the time of purchase and the opposite parties had sold the defective unit to the complainant.<br /> <br /> They have neither replaced nor repaired the unit while keeping the same in their possession. The complainant submits that the above acts of <br /> <br /> opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service on their part and he had suffered mental agony. Hence this complaint was filed before the forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties <br /> 1.To replace a new 0.8 tone Split A/c or<br /> 2.To pay Rs.17,000/- with 18% interest p.a from the date of purchase i.e. 23.7.05 till date of payment,<br /> 3.To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the damages for mental agony, tension and other inconvenience,<br /> 4.To pay the entire cost of this proceedings and <br /> 5.To grant such other and further reliefs as are necessary to meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was served to the opposite parties for their appearance. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were absent and hence called and set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 1st opposite party denied all other averments except the admitted facts in the complaint. 2nd opposite party is the branch office of the 3rd opposite party. All the transaction to 3rd opposite party pertaining to State of Kerala is done through the 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party is the authorised service dealer.<br /> <br /> 1st opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased of 0.8 ton split A/c of Voltas company from the 1st opposite party. As per the invoice No.900 issued by the opposite party the date of sale was 3.8.05 whereas in the complaint the complainant averred that it was on 23.7.05. 1st opposite party states that the A/c was installed at the complainant's premises with the help of a mason provided by the complainant and on checking it was found to be <br /> <br /> perfectly working and the same was approved by the complainant. Opposite party contended that after about 8 months, in the middle of the month of April the complainant informed him that the A/c was not working. 1st opposite party avers that on receiving the complaint, they deputed one technician and it was found that the entire interior wiring and parts including the front panel were bitten by rodents. Hence he took the indoor unit of A/c to 1st opposite party's service station for repair on 18.4.06 and the outdoor unit was still at complainant's premises. Further 1st opposite party denied rest of the allegations in the complaint. It is also denied that the stoppage of functioning of air conditioner was due to the defects in the compressor which was still at the premises of the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> Opposite party averred that in page 14 of the operations manual a 5 year compressor warranty was given to the compressor. Further 1st opposite party contends that as per the warranty clause the company is not liable if the A/c is improperly installed and the warranty is confined to repair and replacement of the defective part only while it does not cover replacement of the A/c itself or the refund of the price of the unit. Further the warranty excludes the replacement and repair of parts if the damage to the parts due to other environmental reasons. The opposite party contended that this case came under exclusion clause since the system got damaged due to biting of rodents i.e. due to environmental reasons. Moreover they informed the complainant about the repairs to be done to the damaged part and informed him as thosethose parts were not covered by the warranty and the complainant has to pay for the repair and replacement of the said damaged parts. It is also contended in the version that the complainant was ready for the replacement of the system and he expressed his willingness to pay the excess amount.<br /> <br /> 1st opposite party has informed the complainant to come and pay the balance amount for replacement of the system but he did not turn up inspite of many reminders by them. Opposite party further submits that after 3 months the complainant informed them that he did not want replacement of A/c but wanted the defective parts repaired and expressed his willingness to pay for the cost. 1st opposite party denied that the complainant had sent a notice on 17.07.06 and the complainant in his letter had admitted that the system got damaged due to biting of rodents. It is further contended that this complaint was filed with the malafide intention to wriggle out of the liability of paying the expenses for repair works done as per the direction of complainant by opposite party. Opposite party submits in his version that the non-functioning of the unit was not due to faulty materials and poor workmanship of the opposite party or their employees and therefore complainant was not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.<br /> <br /> It is stated in the version that the indoor unit of the A/c was still with them and on payment of the repair bill the they were prepared to give the same to the complainant. Opposite party submits that since there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party the complaint has to be dismissed with compensatory costs.<br /> <br /> Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Heard the parties and perused all the relevant documents on record.<br /> <br /> It is true from the Ext.B1 that the complainant had purchased one Volta <br /> <br /> make 0.8 TR Vertis split Air conditioner along with VEL make 2 KVA voltage stabilizer for Rs.17,000/- from the 1st opposite party on 3.8.05 for his own use. According to the complainant 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer and 2nd opposite party the authorised service station of the said unit. The allegation of the complainant is that after six months from the date of purchase the A/c unit was not functioning properly and stopped its function subsequently. As per the Ext.A3, one Technician of 1st opposite party removed the indoor unit of the Air conditioner and took it to the 1st opposite party workshop on 18.4.06 for replacement of defective parts and repair. But the complainant had intimated the fact to 2nd and 3rd opposite parties through a letter dtd.17.7.06 marked Ext.A4. But the complainant admitted the fact that he had rejected to accept the indoor unit from the 1st opposite party on 6.11.06 since he had filed a complaint before the forum seeking a direction for the refund of the cost of the Air conditioner due to the failure on the part of opposite parties, to return the indoor unit duly repaired (Ext.A5 and A6). The contention of the complainant is that the internal wiring and parts were damaged by rats because a hole made on the wall while installing the A/c to take the connecting pipe to the indoor unit was carelessly left unsealed by the Technician at the time of installation of the A/c AT HIS PREMISES. THE 1ST opposite party in his affidavit stated that he was present while installing the unit at complainant's residence and also checked the working of the unit. The contention of the 1st opposite party is that the indoor unit was already repaired and they are ready to give the same to the complainant on payment of the repair bill as per the warranty conditions in the page 13 of operation manuals marked as Ext.B2. They argued that the warranty documents exclude the repair and replacement of parts of the damage occurred due to environmental reasons. But it is understood from the page 13 of the operation manual that the repair or replacement of parts can be done at free of cost for a period of <br /> <br /> 12 months from the date of purchase when the defects were due to faulty material or workmanship and not due to improper usage or faulty electric supply/connection. The repair and replacement of the compressor will not be carried out in the case of accident, misuse, corrosion and other environmental conditions. But the documents on record reveals that no damage was caused to the compressor unit of the air condition supplied to the complainant. it is noticed that the internal wiring and parts of the indoor unit were found damaged by the rats due to the carelessness of the Technician who had installed the unit at the complainant's premises. We are of the opinion that the defects were due to workmanship and therefore it is not proper to fasten the liability on the complainant as per the warranty conditions. It is regrettable that the complainant purchased a air conditioner on 3.8.2005 and the unit stopped functioning after six months (during summer season). In our view it is shameful that the defective indoor unit was repaired and ready for delivery during the month of November 2006 only. We cannot admit the contentions put forward by opposite party for the delay caused to return the indoor unit to the complainant. In the light of the facts set forth above, there is truth in the allegations made by complainant. Hence we attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly.<br /> <br /> We direct opposite parties jointly and severally to return the rectified indoor unit of the A/c and to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony suffered by him, along with a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand only as the price of A/c unit plus Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2007 <br /> <br /> President I/C (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Appendix<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 – Bill dtd.03/08/05<br /> Ext.A2 (Series) – Operation manual <br /> Ext.A2(a) – Warranty certificate<br /> Ext.A2(b) – Guarantee registration<br /> Ext.A3 – Service report dtd.<br /> Ext.A4 – Copy of the notice sent to opposite party dtd.17/07/06<br /> Ext.A5 – Notice sent by 1st opposite party to complainant <br /> Ext.A6 – Copy of the reply sent by the complainant <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties <br /> Ext.B1 – Invoice dtd.03/08/2005<br /> Ext.B2 – Operation manual<br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as costs to the complainant <br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order, <br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent