ORDER
PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
On 24.4.2011, the complainant had purchased an aircondiioner make Voltas from OP1 . It is alleged that on 31.7.2011, the AC had stopped working and a complaint was loidged with OP nos 2 and 3. An engineer of OP3 had repaired the AC. The AC had again stopped working. Thereafter another complaint was made. The A.c was repaired on 10.8.2011 ,. It is alleged that a complaint was again made on 16.8.2011. it is further alleged that in the month of October , the AC had again stopped working and a complaint being lodged , a service engineer came from OP3 on 12.1.0.2011 and after inspection the AC declared that it was defective. The complainant had taken up the matter with the Ops for replacement with the Ops . But to no effect, ehence, the omplaint. The Ops had requested the coplaint .
OP2 has filed a written statement. Wherein it has denied any deficiency on its part and has claimed that the complainant is guilty of suppression of correct facts and had filed the complaint without any cause of acion. Paras 2 to 4
- That the complainant is guilty for suppression of correct facts from the Hon’le Forum and he presented the complaint without any cause of action. Admittedly in the cooling coil and the on 13.10.2011 the service provider i.e. OP no. 3 asked the complainant that they will replace the cooling coil within a week, as the cooling coil is supposed to come from company godown from Mumbai and as the AC was working OK and complainant is enjoying the AC otherwise. Hence, the complainant was requested to bear a week time only.
- That accordingly the service provider visited the premise of the complainant alongwith the cooling coil replaced and under compelling circumstances the service providercame back without replacing the cooling coil in the unit in question. The said facts have been concealed by the complainant from this Hon’ble Forum, hence, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.
- That the cooling coil is lying in the stock of the OP2 and the answering OP is even now ready and willing to replace the cooling coil in the unit in question without any cost.
OP2 has contested the complaint on merits. It has denied for want of knowledge that the complainant has purchased the air conditioner from OP on 24.4.2011. It has denied that it had received any complaint in respect of the AC in July 2011. It is stated that there was small leakage of gas in the AC which was refilled by its service enginners vide service report dated 10.8.2011. It has claimed that no cost was charged from the complainant for the above work and thereafter it had not received any complaint regarding the working of the AC. It has further stated that on receipt of a complaint in the month of October a senior technician of OP3 had visited the premises on 13.10.2011 and on inspection had found a minor problem in the cooling coil . It has stated that it had informed to the complainant that the cooling coil will be replaced withina week’s time after its receipt from it’s the companys godown in Mumbai . It has further stated that OP3 had visited the complainant for the purpose of replacing the cooling coil but the complainant had refused to get the work done. It has stated that there are no merits in this complaint and the same is liable to be dimssed.
During the pendency of the complaint an order was passed on 27.8.2014 which reads as under:-
“Present : Counsel for the parties.
It is agreed that the service engineer of the OP shall visit the place of the complainant within 3 days and replace thecooling coil / other defective parts. A report shall be submitted within 7 days.
To come up for further proceedings on 10.12.2014.
It was , however reported to this forum that the service engineer was not allowed to inspect the machine . an affidavit of the service enginner has been placed on record corroborating the aforesaid fact.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant had purchased an AC on 24.4.2011 . the AC was warranteed for a period of one year. The complainant has placed on record a serice report dated 10.8.2011 which shows that on the said date , the OP had carried out gas charging whereafter it was found that the machine was working perefectly. There is another service report dated 12.10.2011 which shows that there was a complaint og gas leakage. the service enginner had again visited on 13.10.2014 and had recorded a remark that the cooling coil has defected. On behalf of the OP an affidavit has ben filed by sh. Rajiv Rasnjan area manager that the complainant was informed about the defect in the cooling coil and was further informed tat it would be replaced within a week’s time after it was received in company godown in Mumabi. He has further deposed that on receipt of he cooling coil the service enginner had visited the complainat who had refuysed the replacement of the cooling coil. On 27.8.2014 , it had beenagreed that the service engineer of the OP shall visit the complainant within 3 days to replace the cooling coil and other defective parts.
An affidavit has been filed by the service enginner that the complainant had refused to allow inspection fo the A/c and repairs. Under the warranty clause the only liabilt y of the OP is to repair or replace the defective parts during the warranty period . The OP was not oblidge to rplace the entire machine. The insistence of the complainnt on the replacement of the machine was , therefore, misconceived. In the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that there was no deficiency on the part of the OP and that it had given due service to the complainant as was required under the warranty clause. We further hold that there are no merits in the complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
