Delhi

East Delhi

CC/326/2015

MO NASEEM - Complainant(s)

Versus

KBM ELEC. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.326/15

MOHD. NASEEM

S/O KHALIL AHMAD

R/O J-3/5, GALI NO.6, J EXTN.,

LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092

WORKING AT SHOP NO. J-37, J & K BLOCK,

LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092….Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/S KBM ELECTRONICS

THROUGH ITS PROP.

1/32, LALITA PARK, MAIN VIKAS MARG,

LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092.

 

2. M/S. COOL LITE REFRIGERATION

THROUGH ITS PROP./ MANAGER/ HOD

12/36, GEETA COLONY, DELHI-110031

 

3. M/S VOLTAS LIMITED

THROUGH ITS MANAGER/HOD

AT: B1/J2, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL EXTATE,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044.

                                                                                                   ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 07.05.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 22.03.2018

Judgment Passed on: 09.04.2018

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER)

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by the complainant                  Sh. Mohd. Naseem against M/S K.B.M Electronics                         “The Seller”(OP-1), M/S Cool Lite Refrigeration “The Service Centre” (OP-2), and M/S Voltas Limited “The Manufacturer” (OP-3).
2. The facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Voltas Split AC Model No. S 1.5T 18V CX on 19.06.2014 for Rs.40,000/- with one year warranty from OP-1 along with Aromatic Stabilizer 4 KVA for Rs.2800/-. It has been stated that the said AC was financed by Bajaj finance for which the complainant had repaid the loan. On 21.06.2014, the AC was installed by OP-2 at the residence of the complainant, but on 23.06.2014 there was water leakage and noise from the indoor unit, for which the complaint was lodged with OP-1 & OP-3 and thereafter OP-3 issued complaint no. 14062402194 dated 24.06.2014. The technician from OP-2 visited the residence of the complainant on 26.06.2014 and informed that there was a problem of gas leakage, which was refilled on 27.06.2014, complainant has stated that again after 7-8 days there was a problem with cooling of the AC with the same problems mentioned above for which the technician of OP-2 was informed. It has been further stated that on 18.09.2014 the outdoor unit was taken by staff of OP-2 vide challan no. 2415 with the issue reported as “Split A.C. gas leakage outdoor lift for workshop”. The complainant has stated that on 27.09.2014, the OP tried to install one painted outdoor unit, to which the complainant refused. On 14.10.2014 again the official of OP-2 visited and noted the problem as “outdoor for workshop and gas leak”. It has been stated that on 21.01.2015 the outdoor unit was replaced by official of OP-2, but it was not started. On 21.04.2015, the complainant tried to start the said AC, but it did not start for which complaint was registered with OP-2 on same day but the technician of OP visited on 27.04.2015. On 02.05.2015, the complainant was informed that as the PCB was not available, the AC could not be repaired. Hence, complainant has alleged deficiency in services.
3. The complainant has prayed for directions to OP-1 to OP-3 to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,00,000/- as mental harassment and agony, Rs.40,000/- being the cost of AC alongwith interest @ 24% or to replace the defective AC and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

The complainant has annexed copy of the retail invoice bearing no. C-031101/14-15 and C-03111/14-15 respectively, delivery challan dated 18.09.2014, service report dated 26.09.2014, delivery challan dated 14.10.2014, and service report dated 22.04.2015 with the complaint.

4. Notice of the present complaint was served upon all the OPs. As none appeared on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 despite service they were proceeded ex-parte.
5. Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-3, it was stated that there was some minor problem of gas leakage with respect to the complaint dated 18.09.2014 which was done satisfactorily, without delay and it was the complainant who had demanded for the replacement of the said AC, which was reflected from the service report dated 27.09.2014. It was further submitted that the OP-3 had replaced the outdoor unit as a goodwill gesture on 14.10.2014. OP-3 also stated that the complainant had concealed the material facts regarding the replacement of PCB of both indoor and outdoor units on 16.05.2015 and 18.05.2015. Hence, no deficiency in services could be attributed to OP-3. Rest all the contents of the complaint have been denied. Email dated 21.08.2015 has been annexed with the reply as Annexure-1.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he has deposed the contents of the complaint and has relied upon the copy of the invoice dated 19.06.2014 of AC and has got it exhibited as Ex.CW-1/A, copy of invoice dated 19.06.2014 of stabilizer as Ex.CW-1/B, copy of challan dated 18.09.2014 as Ex.CW-1/C, copy of service report dated 26.09.2014 as Ex.CW-1/D, copy of the Challan dated 14.10.2014 as Ex.CW-1/D and copy of the report dated 22/27.04.2015 as Ex.CW-1/E.
7. OP-3 got examined Sh. Sumit Singh (Area Service Manager) who has also deposed the contents of their reply and has got exhibited the email reflecting the history of work as Ex. RW1/1.
8. We have perused the material placed on record and have heard the submission on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the OP-3. The grievance of the complainant is regarding the defective AC for which he had registered complaint within few months of purchase. Perusal of the service report reveals that there was problem of gas leakage as well as defective PCB for which the complainant had to lodge complaint with OP-3 time and again. Further OP-3 has placed on record only an email depicting the work done; which is not supported with any service report to substantiate that the complaints were attended on 16.05.2015 & 18.05.2015. Apart from the fact that the outdoor unit was replaced by OP-3 as a good will gesture on 14.10.2014 and even the replaced unit had problem with PCB, thus it implies that OP-3 was deficient in providing the services as expected from the company of repute. As the complainant has stopped appearing, it seems that he is satisfied with the working of his AC, further no job sheet alleging any problem subsequent to filing of complaint has been filed. But at the same time this fact cannot be ignored that PCB was replaced only after the date of institution of the present complaint, thus it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is entitled to only compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony & harassment inclusive of litigation expenses.  

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

 (Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                        (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

       MEMBER                                                               MEMBER

              

 

 

                                                           (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                              PRESIDENT