Delhi

North East

CC/50/2018

Sh. Sauraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.K. Service Authorized Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 50/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Sauraj Singh S/o Late Shri Jai Bhagwan R/o H.No. G-35, Main 30 Ft. Road Phase-III, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	G.K. Service Authorized Service Centre C-411, Rana Pratap Gali, Babarpur Chajjupur, Shahdara, Delhi-110032   M/s Voltas Ltd., B-1/J-2, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

21.03.2018 09.01.2020 09.01.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Concise facts of the complaint sufficient for deciding the case on merit are briefly recapitulated as that the complainant had purchased a VOLTAS Split Air Conditioner (AC) manufactured from M/s. Sharma Enterprises Delhi on 07.06.2014 and got the same installed at his residence by mechanic of OP2. The subject AC had guarantee / warranty of one year on the unit. However, the AC stopped functioning on 15.06.2016 and accordingly complainant lodged a telephonic complaint with OP2 which then sent its technician through OP1 its Authorized Service Centre (ASC) at complainant’s house who did repairing and welding of the unit of the indoor machine of the AC and charged Rs. 3,400/- for the same paid by the complainant vide Receipt no. 733 dated 15.06.2016. The warranty was also extended by OP2 for one year. But the subject AC started giving cooling problem within the extended warranty period on 08.05.2017 when on the complaint by complainant with OP2, its technician on 08.05.2017 and filled gas and charged Rs. 1,000/- which was paid by complainant vide receipt no. 25 and again on technician visit on 10.05.2017 who did gas charging, the complainant paid Rs. 1,100/- vide Receipt no. 37. However, the AC worked for barely a month and again became defection on 13.06.2017 for which a complaint lodged with OP2 whose technician came on 13.06.2017 and repaired the AC. But on 08.08.2017, the AC again started giving problem and on complaint made on 11.08.2017, a technician of OP2 came on 12.08.2017 but could not detect the defect in the said unit. Therefore on another complaint lodged, a technician on 14.08.2017 and refilled the gas on charges of Rs. 400/- paid by complainant on Receipt no. 76 but the subject AC never gave any cooling from 22.08.2017 and nobody came from OP2 or OP1 to repair / rectify the defect therein. The complainant got issued a legal notice to OPs on 15.09.2017 on receipt of which OP2 sent its technician in early November 2017 but he did not cure the defect. The complainant again sent a legal notice dated 04.01.2018 to OPs after which an employee of OP1 called the complainant asking for job sheet and payment receipt but despite complainant having sent all these necessary documents, no one came from OPs side to replace / change the defective AC despite assurances for which reason complainant had to face inconvenience and discomfort in hot and humid weather. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service and prayed for issuance of direction against OPs to replace the defective with a new one along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
2. Complainant has attached copy of VOLTAS AC manual Booklet front page, copy of first free service coupon showing date of purchase, first free service and guarantee of one year, copy of warranty card, copy of four job sheets / service reports issued by OP1 between 15.06.2016 to 30.06.2018, copy of legal notices dated 15.09.2017 and 04.01.2018 by complainant to OPs alongwith postal receipt and tracking report for delivery.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 04.04.2018. None appeared on behalf of OP1 despite service effected on 18.04.2018 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.10.2018. OP2 entered appearance on 02.07.2018 and gave a statement before this Forum that its service engineer had visited the complainant’s resident on 30.06.2018 to repair the AC but report prepared by him that AC unit was repeatedly malfunctioning due to its proximity to a drain / nullah near complainant’s residence which emitted fumes leading to burning of copper coil was snatched by the complainant. The complainant objected to such allegations.  Therefore, this Forum had directed OP2 to send its service engineer to complainant’s residence the following day to take photographs of the alleged drain and file the same alongwith written statement.
4. Written statement was filed by OP2 in which it took the preliminary objection that the subject AC was out of warranty since June 2015 and complainant had used the same admittedly for two years but in callous manner without getting servicing done thereof leading to damage of the AC which otherwise had no manufacturing defect OP2 defended its stand of no deficiency of service in having provided all services to complainant on time relying upon the several job sheets and laid emphasis that it was the complainant instead who had refused to get the unit inspected by technician of OP2 and instead abused them when they had visited complainant’s residence in compliance of order dated 02.07.2018. On merits OP2 stated that complainant had not placed on record either the purchase invoice or record of any installation bill / receipt issued by OP2 as alleged by complainant. The Subject AC had guarantee of one year on it which ended on 06.06.2015 after expiry of which guarantee the technician visited the complainant’s premises on 15.06.2016 to inspect the unit and remove defect therein when he found that there was gas leakage in the
   AC and accordingly he did gas charges alongwith mending of pipe line and also gave wet service for which Rs 3,400/- were charged. The OP2 submitted that the warranty was extended to one year as a consumer friendly gesture by it to the complainant. OP2 further urged that on complaint received on 14.08.2017 and not on 12.08.2017 as made out by complainant, it technician visited complainant’s premises to inspect the AC unit and asked for Rs. 400/- as estimated expenses for repair which the complainant refused to pay despite which OP2 again sent it technician on 23.08.2017 on complainant call and found cooling coil defective but complainant refused to pay charges for repair of the same. Lastly, OP2 submit that all its technician well qualified to give proper service and advice and alleged that the AC is malfunctioning due to complainant’s lack of care in maintaining the same and failure to get it service timely. Therefore in light of defence so taken, OP2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. This Forum, to resolve the deadlock and to get a clear picture pertaining to defect alleged and denied by both parties in their respective stand, appointed a Local Commissioner (LC) on hearing held on 11.07.2018 who then visited the complainant’s side on 14.07.2018 in the presence of complainant’s and OP2’s technician / service engineer from OP1 and inspected the unit installation site. Vide his report filed on 19.07.2018, LC submitted that the service engineer of OP2 from OP1 took photographs of the AC in question and LC inspected the nearby location of drain as pointed out by OP2 in hearing held on 02.07.2018 to be the main reason for recurring defect in the AC being in close proximity to the drain.
6. Rejoinder in rebuttal to the defence taken by OP2 was filed by complainant in which complainant alleged that service engineer of OP2 from OP1 prepared a false and frivolous report mentioning presence of drain near complainant’s house spoiling the AC unit but has failed to submit any photographs of the drain and streets on all four sides knowingly and deliberately since there is no such drain. Complainant submitted that subject AC is still mechanically defected it was spoiled by service / repair done by unqualified technicians / mechanics of OP1 sent by OP2. To the allegations of refusal by complainant two technicians of OP2 to inspect the AC in July 2018, complainant submitted that the service engineer never came before 05.07.2018 on which date he took picture of a far away drain located and also took away the photographs but did not take picture of a narrow drain nearby. Complainant stated that OPs have extorted Rs. 7,000/- from the complainant in the garb of repair of the subject AC which amount was paid by complainant in different tranches on each visit of technician. Complainant denied any technician having visited his residence on 23.08.2018 and lastly submitted nowhere in LC report is there mention of any vide drain / nullah and therefore prayed for relief claim.
7. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant in which he exhibited the originals of documents relied upon / filed alongwith complaint as Ex. Cw 1/1 to Cw 1/12.
8. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP2 sworn by its branch area Service Manager reiterating defence taken in the written statement.
9. Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion / reemphasis of their respective grievance / defence.
10. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant. OP2 did not appear to address oral argument despite having been accorded two opportunities in October 2018 and January 2020. However, in view of the settled law, its pleadings shall be considered for the purpose of passing of order.
11. Undisputedly, the subject AC purchased in June 2014 worked uninterruptedly and without any complaint for two years till mid June 2016 as the first complaint admitted by both sides pertaining to malfunctioning of the said unit was lodged on 15.06.2016. It is also not disputed that the subject AC had a warranty /guarantee of one year which ended on 06.06.2015 and was extended by OP2 for one year from 15.06.2016 to 14.06.2017. The dispute arose due to the subject AC’s repeated malfunctioning in terms of no cooling between June 2016 till last repair / service in June 2018 during validity of extended warranty and after expiry of the same for more than 5-6 times when the complainant had lodged repeated complaints and several repair work, welding and gas filling was done by OP1 technicians as ASC of OP2. Out of the complainants made after extended warranty, two were within the warranty period i.e. complaint made on 08.05.2017-10.05.2017 and another complaint made on 15.06.2017 after which in August 2017 no repair work of the  subject AC was undertaking. The allegations of OP2 made in statement before this Forum on hearing held on 02.07.2018 pertaining to the subject AC being located near a drain / nullah due to emission fume from which, the subject AC is repeatedly malfunctioning due to coil burn find no mention in the written statement filed by OP2 subsequently. Further, there is a contradiction in para 3 of preliminary objection and para 4 of reply on merits in as much as on one hand OP submits that the warranty of the subject AC expired in June 2015 and on the other hand submitted it had extended the warranty from June 2016 to June 2017. The LC report is also silent on the AC installed in near proximity to the alleged drain and states that the outdoor of the AC is installed on the roof top towards western side of the property of complainant and about 400 ft away from the property towards north west is there a 30 feet road with side nullah and further mentions that the service engineer Sanjay Kumar from OP1 of OP2 had taken photographs of the nearby location of the nullah. However, no such photographs have been placed on record by OP2 to substantiate its defence of AC having been malfunctioning due to its bad location / installation leading to repeated copper coil burn. However notwithstanding the same, the subject AC was used by the complainant uninterruptedly for two years which rules out any possibility of a manufacturing defect in the said unit and the warranty on the same had also expired a year ago before the first defect arose in the said AC. But the OP2 extended warranty on the same from June 2016 to June 2017 after which period, the OP2 was well with its right to charge for any repair as is also the settled law passed in catena of judgment, viz Dinanath Vs Micronas Telecom Nokia Authorized Service Centre III (2017) CPJ 61 (NC) passed by Hon'ble National Commission on 15.05.2017 which held that after warranty period, if the complainant wants to get his appliance repaired, he is supposed to make payment for the same immaterial of the cost to be incurred and OP is not supposed to repair free of cost after expiry of warranty period. Hon'ble National Commission in Godrej GE Appliances Ltd. Vs Satinder Singh Sobti 2000 (1) CPR 86 (NC) held that manufacturer cannot be directed to provide free service after warranty period and complainant cannot claim the same.  However, notwithstanding, the settled law, it cannot be ignored that the subject AC malfunction in repeated succession between May 2017 to June 2017 during the extended warranty period though prior to it, it continued working fine between June 2016 i.e. first repair till May 2017 for almost a year as can be ascertained from the pleading of the complainant and also that all complaints between June 2016 till June 2017 were duly attended to by technician OP2. After due appreciation of material placed on record, we are of the consider view that the deficiency of service on the part of OPs is only limited to the lame defence taken by it of defect in AC due to close proximity to a drain which it failed to establish and also having failed to repair the AC properly during the extended warranty period, the mitigating circumstance only being the fact the AC had already been used without complaint for two year from June 2014 to June 2016 and therefore does not merit replacement.
12. We therefore direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally  to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment inclusive of litigation charges for having failed to repair the subject AC successfully within extended warranty period and taking lame defence of drain uncorroborated only to misguide this Forum. Let the order be complied by both the parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
14.   File be consigned to record room.
15.   Announced on  09.01.2020

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member