Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/439/2020

Sunil Singh Negi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Voltas Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Chandan Singh

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/439/2020
Date of Institution	:	12/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	18/07/2022

 

 

Sunil Singh Negi s/o Sh. Prakash Singh Negi r/o House No.3953, Maloya Colony, UT, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Voltas Pvt. Ltd., Head Office at SCO No.201, 202, 203, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022.
2. National Air Conditional Service Center, B-174, Phase 8, Mohali, Punjab.
3. Shree Sai Enterprises, SCO No.23, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Inderpal Singh, Vice Counsel for Sh.Chandan Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sanjay Judge, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Ops 2 & 3 ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, on 3.7.2020, complainant purchased a Voltas air conditioner from OP-3 and paid consideration of ₹34,000/-.  Averred, though the OPs assured that there would be no installation charges, still an amount of ₹7,000/- was charged from the complainant on the pretext of use of extra copper wire. After installation, when the AC was switched on, the complainant pointed out that the outdoor unit was making noise and flap direction was not working, but, the OPs failed to rectify the same. The complainant sent email dated 5.8.2020 to the OPs narrating the problems faced by him. However, despite of exchange of emails and visits of service personnel of the OPs, the problems could not be rectified.  Ultimately the OPs changed the indoor unit of the AC on 15.9.2020, but, still there was no cooling. Finally, representative/ASM of the OPs told the complainant that he would be sending email to the head office seeking approval for change of complete indoor and outdoor unit which would be done within 4-5 days. However, till date nothing has been done. Per complainant, the AC suffers from manufacturing defect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and admitted the facts with regard the purchase of the AC in question.  Denied any assurance was given with regard to installation of any extra copper wire, if required, free of charge. Averred the indoor unit was changed only as a goodwill gesture. Maintained there was no major defect in the AC and minor problems were attended to and rectified. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Registered notice was sent to OP-2 which was presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, vide order dated 31.03.2021 of this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.     Registered notice was sent to OP-3 which was presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OP-3, therefore, vide order dated 19.01.2021 of this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
5.     The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP-1 and reiterated the averments made in the consumer.
6.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case, including written arguments.
8.     Evidently, complainant purchased a Voltas AC from OP-3 vide invoice dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure C-1) and paid the consideration of ₹34,000/- and the same carried warranty of five years on complete AC and 10 years on compressor. As per case of the complainant, the AC was making huge noise when started and flap direction was not working in the indoor unit.  After various follow ups by the complainant, OPs replaced the indoor unit but as per the complainant still the AC is having problem of cooling. 
9.     The stand taken by OP-1/manufacturer is that as and when the complainant raised any issue, the same was duly attended to and rectified. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part.
10.     It is worth noting that OPs 2 & 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of OPs 2 & 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of OPs 2 & 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted qua them.
11.     After going through the evidence on record it is the admitted fact that the AC in question was having certain problem after which OP made arrangement for replacing the indoor unit as the same was within warranty period.  Undoubtedly the genuine request of the complainant was redressed timely but we are of the considered opinion that the complainant had spent his hard earned money in purchasing the AC in question, trusting the brand of the OP, to enjoy its cooling in hot and sultry months. However, he was deprived of the same, for no fault on his part, as he had to face problems in the AC and had to run after the OPs for rectification of the same.  Though the indoor unit of the AC in question was replaced, but, that does not absolve the OPs from their act of supplying a defective product and thereby causing harassment to the complainant as he had to run from pillar to post for the redressal of his grievance and ultimately institute the present consumer complaint.
12.     So far as the allegation of manufacturing defect in the AC is concerned, no such evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to corroborate his stand. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that there is no manufacturing defect in the AC and the complainant cannot be granted damages of ₹34,000/- sought by him.
13.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
18/07/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member