By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> The averments in the complainant is as follows:<br /> <br /> The petitioner had purchased a Voltas 1.0 Ton window type Air conditioner from first respondent on 19/5/02 for Rs.19,120/-. After the purchase the front grill of the product was defective and started non functioning. There was no sufficient cooling from the Air Conditioner. The petitioner complained about the defects several times, but no use. Petitioner is in the opinion that the product was not a new one. There is deficiency in service and lawyer notice sent to the respondents, but no remedy. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The counter of 1st respondent is that they had sold the said Air conditioner to the complainant vide their Bill No.4900 dated 19/9/2002 for Rs.19,120/- They are the authorized sales and service dealer of Voltas air conditioner since 1964 and this is the first time that they are receiving this type of allegation that they have cheated the customer by supplying defective goods as can be verified from records. The main duty of service dealer is to look after all the service complaints of the customer as and when required by them during warranty period at free of cost. They have completed all the four free warranty services without any written complaint from the petitioner. They have given the warranty card duly filled by them stating that one year warranty expires on 18/9/03 and five years warranty on compressor expires on 18/9/07. During the warranty period of one year they have not received any complaint. This shows that the air conditioner has worked perfectly. The plastic parts such as front grill etc there is no warranty , as a special case they had change the front grill colour as per their request as gray to ivory. The details of warranty service is given in the counter. Inspite of legal notice received by the respondents they had sent their mechanic Mr.Biju to do final free service on 15/9/03. The petitioner has allowed to do the service but as per Advocate’s advice have not signed the service report. In final service respondent has checked the cooling of the air conditioner and found perfectly working. The room temperature reading upto 17 degree C shows the efficiency of the air conditioner. So the allegation of ‘no cooling’ and air conditioner is ‘not working’ are not true. The allegation of supplying defective air conditioner was raised on 17/7/03 by the petitioner, only after 11 months after use. Air conditioner was supplied on 19/9/02 in between three services were over. The petitioner is still using the air conditioner without any complaint. This particular A.C. was selected by the customer (with the assistance of one Gulf returned mechanic who accompanied her) and delivered by them to her house on 19/9/02. They wanted A.C. with the reciprocating compressor for this 1.0 Ton model and do not want the new model with rotary compressor which was also available at that time. They got payment Rs.15,000/- on 19/9/2002 (at the time of delivery). The balance amount was paid by the petitioner on 30/9/2002 only. The customer told that payment would be made only after the installation of A.C. and checking the cooling to the petitioner’s satisfaction . They agreed petitioner’s terms. As the A.C. was running perfectly after installation, they got entire amount on 30/9/2002. This shows that petitioner had satisfied the model colour of the grill and working condition of the air conditioner. There is no point in denying the real facts after 11 months of purchase. Now Voltas is not making 1.0 Ton A.C. with reciprocating compressor. All A.Cs of 1.0 Ton capacity is coming with rotary compressor which the petitioner does not want. If the customer is not satisfied the working or the look of the A.C. she should have returned it immediately after delivery of before making final payment of 30/0/02. Since the petitioner has not done it and has continuously used it for past 11 months and making allegation now is not justified. Hence dismiss the petition.<br /> <br /> 3.The counter of 2nd respondent is as follows:<br /> The averments in paragraph 1 of the complaint that the front grill of the Air-Conditioner was defective is contrary to facts and hence denied. The Opposite Party had provided a one year warranty till 18/9/2003 and a five year warranty for the compressor valid till 18/9/2007. During the warranty period of one year, the opposite parties have not come across any complaint for the Air-Conditioner purchased by the complainant. It is submitted that plastic parts such as the front grill are not covered by warranty provided by the opposite parties. However, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party had replaced the front grill of the air conditioner as requested by the complainant. On four occasions namely on 4/12/02, 6/3/03, 4/6/03 and 15/9/03, the opposite parties had provided free service for the complainant’s air conditioner. However no complaint or defect was pointed out by the complainant during the visit of the Service Engineer. The averment in para 2 of the complaint that the air conditioner does not have enough cooling is false and hence denied. The further averment in para 2 that the complainant was supplied a used air conditioner is false and hence denied. The allegation of supplying a defective air conditioner was raised by the complainant only on 17/7/03 after 11 months of continuous use of the air conditioner. The opposite parties who are carrying out the manufacture and sale of air conditioners for the past several decades have not supplied used air conditioner to any customer or for that matter, to the complainant. The averment that the complainant being a woman was cheated is absolutely incorrect. There is no necessity for the opposite parties to cheat the complainant in any manner. The opposite parties had supplied only brand new air conditioner and there is no deficiency in service or wrongful act as alleged. There is no manufacturing defect or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has continued to use the air conditioner in spite of the alleged complaints and the air conditioner is working without any defects whatsoever. The above complaint has been filed solely to harass the opposite parties. The opposite parties have been dragged into frivolous and vexatious litigation without any justifiable reasons. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are <br /> 1) Is there any deficiency in service ?<br /> 2) Is the complainant is entitled for return of the price as prayed ?<br /> 3) Other reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1, C1 and Exhibits R1 to R5. No other evidence.<br /> <br /> 6. Points: The definite case of the complainant is that she had purchased a voltas 1.0 Ton window type Air Conditioner from 1st respondent on 19/9/02 and after the purchase without any delay the product was defective and started non functioning. She also contended that several times complaints were made but no use. A detailed counter is filed by 1st respondent in which it is stated that they have completed all the free four services without any written complaint from the petitioner. The services were done on 4/12/02, 6/3/03, 4/6/03 and 15/9/03 and evidenced by exhibits R1 to R4. The 3rd free service was done on 4/6/03 and till that time no complaint raised by her. Only on 17/7/03 she had put a complaint and on 15/9/03 fourth free service was made meanwhile she had filed complaint before the Forum. When Exhibit P1 notice was received by 1st respondent they had sent their mechanic Mr.Biju to do final service and the service report was not signed by her. So the complaint regarding the defects of air conditioner arise only after 10 months of sale. But in the petition she is stated that after the purchase without delay the complaints arose. This view itself is not believable. If there were defects much earlier it would have cured at the time of service and no case that the existing defects were cured at the time of servicing. So the defects were occurred just after the purchase is wrong. The petitioner is in the opinion that the product was not a new one. Exhibit C1 is the Commission Report in which it is clearly stated that the product was not an old one at the time of sale. He also reported that the air conditioner is working perfectly without any complaint and the temperature also reported by the Commissioner. The Commission Report is against the case of complainant. No objection is filed by the complainant against the Exhibit C1 report. According to the complainant the A.C. was not in a fit condition and she made complaint several times. But there is no evidence regarding this aspect. The first time she had alleged the complaint is the lawyer notice. Before that free services were done by 1st respondent and the complainant has no case that as per her request the services were done and not pleaded that those times it has defects. In Exhibit C1 it is stated that there is lack of servicing . The Commissioner had inspected the product in the year 2005. The last free service was 15/9/03 and after that she is seen to be not maintaining the product properly. Hence she is not entitled for the relief sought. In the counter of 1st respondent it is stated that at the time of purchase she was accompanied by a mechanic of her own choice and home delivery was made by the 1st respondent. If the complainant is not satisfied the working of the A/C she can very well return it before the payment made on 30/9/02. In the counter it is stated that payments were made on two occasions. The complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service of the respondents and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result the complaint is dismissed, without cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of September 2008. <br /> <br />