BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.391 of 2014

Date of Institution: 22-07-2014

Date of Decision: 12-06-2015  

Dr.Kamaldeep Singh son of Late Sh.Bawa Singh, resident of 148, Green Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.Bahadar Chand & Co. Hall Bazar, Amritsar.
2. Voltas Limited, Voltas House, B-3^rd  Floor, Cabd-Export Cell, T.B.Kadam Marg, Chinchokli, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its Director or competent officer. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S.Sachdeva, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sanjeev Arora, Advocate.       

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Dr.Kamaldeep Singh  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Voltas Air Conditioner, No.WAC-124LY ITN AC VOLTAS TF on 10.6.2014 vide Invoice No. TF 807 dated 10.6.2014 from Opposite Party No.1 for a  sum of Rs.21,300/-. Complainant alleges that on 16.6.2014, the compressor of the Air Conditioner stopped working properly and started to produce sound. Even the cooling effect was not effective i.e. 0%, hence the Air Conditioner  was defective. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 with the request to rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner  in question and lodged a complaint with registration No. 14061300431 dated 16.6.2014. He also called the staff/ officials of the Opposite Party No.1 several times, but to no avail. He also called Mr.Chetan Sharma 10 times, Mr.Simarjit Singh two times on 16.6.2014 and Mr.Lucky 42 times on 16.6.2014 to 22.6.2014 and Mr.Harsh 11 times on 16.6.2014 to 21.6.2014 for its repair, but to no affect. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.21,300/- being the sale consideration of the said Air Conditioner  alongwith interest from the date of its sale till the amount is refunded to the complainant.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.8.2014 of this Forum. 
3. On notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant neither approached Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 with the request to rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner  in question nor  lodged any complaint with registration No. 14061300431 dated 16.6.2014 with Opposite Party No.2. It is also denied that the complainant  called the staff/ officials of the Opposite Party No.1 several times, but to no avail. Opposite Party No.2  also denied that the complainant called Mr.Chetan Sharma 10 times, Mr.Simarjit Singh two times on 16.6.2014 and Mr.Lucky 42 times on 16.6.2014 to 22.6.2014 and Mr.Harsh 11 times on 16.6.2014 to 21.6.2014 for its repair. In fact, the complainant filed no complaint in the toll free number of Opposite Party No.2. The whole story prepared by the complainant is false and frivolous one. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith bill Ex.C2  and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Karanvir Singh, Area Service Manager Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Voltas Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1 on 10.6.2014 vide Invoice No. TF 807 dated 10.6.2014 for a  sum of Rs.21,300/- (Ex.C2) . Complainant alleges that on 16.6.2014, the compressor of the Air Conditioner stopped working properly and became defective. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 with the request to rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner  in question and lodged a complaint with registration No. 14061300431 dated 16.6.2014. The complainant also called the staff/ officials of the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Mr.Chetan Sharma 10 times, Mr.Simarjit Singh two times on 16.6.2014 and Mr.Lucky 42 times on 16.6.2014 to 22.6.2014 and Mr.Harsh 11 times on 16.6.2014 to 21.6.2014 for repair of the aforesaid Air Conditioner, but none appeared from the Opposite Parties  to repair the Air Conditioner  of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1  as alleged  with complaint about the Air Conditioner  in question. The Opposite Party No.2 denied that the complainant registered complaint vide registration No. 14061300431 dated 16.6.2014 with Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 also denied that the complainant  called the staff/ officials of the Opposite Party No.1 several times, but to no avail. Opposite Party No.2  also denied that the complainant called Mr.Chetan Sharma 10 times, Mr.Simarjit Singh two times on 16.6.2014 and Mr.Lucky 42 times on 16.6.2014 to 22.6.2014 and Mr.Harsh 11 times on 16.6.2014 to 21.6.2014 for its repair. In fact, the complainant filed no complaint in the toll free number of Opposite Party No.2. The whole story prepared by the complainant is false and frivolous one. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 however, submitted that  as the Air Conditioner  of the complainant is within warranty, if there is any defect, the Opposite Party No.2 is ready to repair the same without charging any amount as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, but the complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that  there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Voltas Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.1 on 10.6.2014 vide Invoice No. TF 807 dated 10.6.2014 (Ex.C2) for a  sum of Rs.21,300/-. The complainant submitted that the Air Conditioner  in question stopped working on 16.6.2014 and the Air Conditioner  was not giving any cooling. The complainant stated that he approached Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 and lodged a complaint vide registration No. 14061300431 dated 16.6.2014 and he  also called so many officials of  Opposite Party No.1  namely Mr.Chetan Sharma, Mr.Simarjit Singh, Mr.Lucky and Mr.Harsh, but the Opposite Party No.2 has totally denied the aforesaid complaint with aforesaid registration No. 14061300431 dated 16.6.2014. Opposite Party No.2 also denied that complainant called said Mr.Chetan Sharma, Mr.Simarjit Singh, Mr.Lucky and Mr.Harsh. The complainant has not produced any evidence documentary or oral that he lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.2 with aforesaid registration No. 14061300431 dated 16.6.2014 nor the complainant could state as to on which telephone number, he called Mr.Chetan Sharma, Mr.Simarjit Singh, Mr.Lucky and Mr.Harsh, whereas Opposite Party No.2 has categorically stated that the complainant never lodged any complaint with Opposite Party No.2 on their  toll free telephone numbers. However, the complainant has purchased the Air Conditioner  on 10.6.2014 and he filed the present complaint on 22.7.2014 i.e. within a period of 1½ months from the date of its purchase.  Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 stated at bar that as the Air Conditioner  of the complainant is within warranty period, if there is any defect in the Air Conditioner  of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 is ready to repair the same without charging any amount as per the terms and conditions of the warranty.
10. Consequently this complaint is disposed of with the directions to opposite party No.2 through their authorized service centre at Amritsar to send some mechanic/engineer to check the AC of the complainant, if there is any defect in the said AC and repair the same and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order, without charging any amount as per terms and conditions of the warranty. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 12-06-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member