ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.129 of 22-04-2015 Decided on 26-02-2016 Chhinderpal Singh aged about 62 years S/o Amrik Singh R/o St.No.1/3, Multania Road, Bathinda, through its authorized person Gurlal Singh S/o Chhinderpal Singh. ........Complainant Versus 1.Managing Director Voltas Limited, Voltas House 'A Block', Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033. 2.Voltas Limited, Area Office SCO 201-202-203, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022, through its Area Manager/Authorized Person. 3.Yash Transformers & Air Conditioner, Behind Singh Sabha Gurdawara, Quila Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager. 4.Voltas Service Centre, St.No.13, Ajit Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For complainant: Sh.Dharampal Singh, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4: Sh.Parveen Sharma, Advocate. For opposite party No.3: Sh.Gursewak Singh, Advocate. ORDER M. P. Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Chhinderpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Managing Director Voltas Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties are making tall claims regarding performance and service after sales network for their Air Conditioners through pamphlet, newspapers advertisements and allured by the same, he purchased one Air Conditioner Voltas 1.50 ton capacity for Rs.29,500/- vide invoice No.30 dated 2.5.2014 from opposite party No.3 with one year guarantee on Air Conditioner and 4 years guarantee on its compressor. The abovesaid Air Conditioner was not working properly and despite repeated requests made by the complainant, it has not been set right. It is alleged that firstly, after 1.5 months, the Air Conditioner started giving problem in compressor, which was replaced with new one after few days. Then after 2 months, there was gas leakage problem and Air Conditioner was set right. Now, in the hot season, Air Conditioner started, it again gave gas leakage problem. It is lying with opposite party No.4 and its service engineer has alleged that there is some manufacturing defect in it and it is beyond repairs. The complainant repeatedly requested for replacement of defective Air Conditioner with new one, but it has not been replaced with new one. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and requests for directions to opposite parties to replace the Air Conditioner with new one and to pay Rs.5500/- as cost of complaint. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their written version. In their joint written version, they have raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint. He is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct, admissions, omissions and acquiescence. He has not approached before this Forum with clean hands and has intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. This complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to his knowledge and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased one Air Conditioner from opposite party No.3 and there is one year guarantee on Air Conditioner and 4 years additional guarantee on compressor as per rules and regulations/terms and conditions of the guarantee. It is denied that Air Conditioner is not functioning properly. As per opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4, in the last week of July 2014, the Air Conditioner started giving problem of cooling and complainant lodged complaint. It was found that there was leakage of gas in compressor of the Air Conditioner. Compressor was removed on 29.7.2014 and was replaced with new one on 1.8.2014 and it did not cause any problem of gas after two months as alleged by the complainant. It is further admitted that the complainant lodged complaint regarding leakage of the gas in the mid of April 2015. Opposite party No.4 sent its mechanic to his house for checking the functioning of the Air Conditioner, which is still within the guarantee period. After checking, it was found that the gas from the Air Conditioner has leaked, as such Air Conditioner was got removed and brought to the workshop of opposite party No.4 for its proper check-up and after checking, it was set right. Opposite party No.4 filled the gas in Air Conditioner free of cost without charging even a single penny and its intimation was given to the complainant on 20.4.2015, but he proclaimed that he is out of station for 2 days and asked opposite party No.4 to install Air Conditioner after 22.4.2015. Again on 22.4.2015, opposite party No.4 contacted him telephonically, but he refused to get Air Conditioner installed and proclaimed that he has already filed a complaint. Opposite party No.4 repaired the Air Conditioner on 19/20.4.2015. The complainant has filed this complaint on false facts in order to put pressure upon opposite parties to replace the Air Conditioner with new one, which is not permissible under the guarantee clause. After Controverting all other averments, opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 prayed for dismissed of complaint. In its separate written version, opposite party No.3 has raised legal objections regarding maintainability, concealment of facts, mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, stand of opposite party No.3 is that it is only dealer of Voltas Air conditioner. The service station has been established by the company, as such defect, if any in the Air Conditioner is to be removed by the company and service station. In the end, opposite party No.3 has controverted all other averments and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurlal Singh dated 7.8.2015, (Ex.C1) and photocopy of invoice, (Ex.C2). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurbachan Singh dated 30.10.2015, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of authority letter, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of warranty, (Ex.OP1/3) and photocopies of service report, (Ex.OP1/4 and Ex.OP1/5) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Yash Pal dated 30.10.2015, (Ex.OP3/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as set up in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. It is well settled that the complainant has to prove his case by affirmative evidence and opposite parties have to rebut his evidence. Now, it is to be seen that whether the complainant has been able to prove his case or not. Only evidence produced by the complainant is affidavit of Gurlal Singh, (Ex.C1) and invoice, (Ex.C2). The complaint was filed by Chhinderpal Singh, but he has not tendered his own affidavit. There is no cause for not producing of affidavit by complainant Chhinderpal Singh. Other evidence produced by the complainant is invoice, which only proves that complainant has purchased Air Conditioner on 2.5.2014. It is not disputed that guarantee on the compressor is 4 years and guarantee on other parts is for one year. The complainant has not alleged and proved that there was any defect in the compressor. As per complainant, Air Conditioner is lying with opposite party No.4. He has not mentioned the date on which it was taken by opposite party No.4. Opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 have pleaded that in the mid of April 2015, the complainant lodged complaint regarding leakage of gas in Air Conditioner and it was got removed and brought to workshop for proper check-up and after checking the same was set right and its intimation was given to the complainant on 20.4.2015. He has not disputed this averments of opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4. This complaint has been filed on 22.4.2015 i.e. without waiting for delivery of Air Conditioner by opposite party No.4. The categorically stand of opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 is that Air Conditioner stands repaired and complainant has not come forward to collect it. Opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 have also placed on record service report dated 19.4.2015 wherein it is also recorded that customer was called after repair of the product and he has not come forward. In these circumstances, conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby partly accepted without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to collect his repaired Air Conditioner from opposite party No.4. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 26-02-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |