CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.261/2022
MR. SAMARTH WADHWA,
C-5, GREATER KAILASH ENCLAVE-I,
NEW DELHI 110048…..COMPLAINANT
M/S. VOLTAS LIMITED,
A-43, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110044.
P.S. BADARPUR, NEW DELHI ….OPPOSITE PARTY
Date of Institution-09.09.2022
Date of Order-02.08.2024
O R D E R
DR. RAJENDER DHAR-MEMBER
The complaint pertains to deficiency in services and selling faulty AC which amounts to unfair trade practice.
Complainant in his complaint has stated that he has purchased one number 2 ton Hot/Cold Air Conditioner, model no. EU 24H 5Y, Sl. no. 4512110D17AA01005 on 21.04.2018 from the authorised dealer of M/s. Voltas Ltd. i.e. OP.
Complainant has further stated that the said AC started giving problems right from the beginning, complaints were made to OP authorised service centre however each time different technicians raised different issues but the AC did not work for more than two days after fixing the problem. It has also been stated by the complainant that the during the Covid-19 since movements were restricted and service centre technicians were not allowed to come to the house of the complainant therefore, the said AC was not used for almost two years. Thereafter, on the suggestion/ advice of the technician the place/position of AC was changed for which the complainant was charged by OP..
It has been further stated by the complainant that despite changing the capasitor two to three times the AC thereafter worked only for 10 to 15 minutes. Finally the complainant was informed that the compressor of AC is bad and needs to be changed. Complaint for the same was lodged with OP on 19.05.2022 but the OP did not meet the obligation of warranty clause. Quality of service was very deficient. The OP was simply gaining time so that the warranty period is over. There was manufacturing defect in the AC.
In the end the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to rectify /replace air conditioner.
Notice dated 17.04.2023 directing OP to appear on 15.05.2023 was sent and the delivery of the notice stands confirmed on OP as per the track report dated 29.04.2023 placed on file. However, OP did not appear and hence was proceeded ex-parte on 15.05.2023.
Thereafter the complainant filed his evidence along with documents which have been duly exhibited. Verbal arguments were also tendered by the Complainant.
The Commission has considered the contents of the complaint, evidence and verbal submissions made by the complainant and other service related documents. It is a fact that the complainant purchased a 2 ton Hot/Cold Air Conditioner, model no. EU 24H 5Y, Sl. No. 4512110D17AA01005 from OP against payment made of Rs.44,700/- and the said AC was under warranty.
Since, the AC was under warranty and due to if faulty working, the complainant constantly faced issues with the air conditioner and from time to time lodged multiple complaints as indicated in the letter dated 02.06.2022 sent by the complainant to OP. It is seen that from 10.07.2020 to 18.05.2022 ten complaints were made by the complainant to OP regarding rectification /malfunctioning of the AC for which the complainant has also paid Rs.9,419/- to OP, although, the product was under warranty period. It is also observed that different technicians of OP have been visiting the complainant and have been suggesting different faults and different solutions. This also put the complainant in a dicey situation and in a confused state of mind. The Technician has been raising different issues at different point of time regarding faulty parts of AC etc. etc. The AC has been found to be dysfunctional but no permanent solution has been provided by the OP to the complainant.
It is a clear case where the OP has shown no concern towards resolving the complainant’s problem in any manner whatsoever, OP is a branded company and is expected to provide satisfactory and customer friendly services to its customers up to their satisfaction. After rectification, the AC has barely worked for 10 to 15 minutes in the last two years and services provided by the technicians of OP have been found highly deficient and unsatisfactory. By letter dated 23.07.2022 which has been sent by the complainant stating that despite previous complaints regarding malfunctioning of the AC OP has not responded and faulty AC has not been rectified/replaced.
It is also seen that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.9,419/- towards repairs carried out by technicians of OP from time to time even when the TV was under warranty period. This act on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in services and also adopting unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. In view of the above circumstances ends of justice would be served for which following directions are issued to the OP:
- OP is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant within one month of issuance of this order failing which it will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of purchasing of the AC i.e. 24.01.2018 till its realization.
Since, complainant has not made other prayers with regard to compensation and costs of litigation hence no directions are passed in that regard.
Order to be uploaded and to be complied with within 30 days from the date of the order. File consigned to record room.
