Delhi

East Delhi

CC/978/2014

DEEPAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RVS ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  978/14

 

Shri Deepak Joshi

R/o H. No. 1/11211A, Subhash Park

Street No. 12, Sha                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. RVS Enterprises

Off. A-1, Kanti Nagar Ext.

Delhi – 110 051

 

2. Voltas Service Centre

A-43, Mathura Road Mohan Co-op

Industrial state, New Delhi – 110 044                                                                    

 

3. Voltas Limited

B-1/J2, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate, Mathura Road

New Delhi – 110 044                                                                      ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 21.10.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 17.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 19.04.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Deepak Joshi against RVS Entreprises (OP-1), Voltas Service Centre (OP-2) and Voltas Limited (OP-3) praying for directions to OP to refund the cost of AC, Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony & pain and             Rs. 15,000/- cost of litigation. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased one air conditioner of voltas from RVS Enterprises (OP-1) for a sum of Rs. 21,500/- vide bill no. 263 on 27.05.2013 Tin no. 07770323495 with 5 years compressor warranty.  It has been stated that in the month of September, 2014, complainant was feeling some sound in the AC, which was informed to respondent.  He did not get any satisfactory reply.  On 22.09.2014, the omplainant alongwith his family was sleeping in the AC room and all of a sudden, there was blast.  The incident happened at 2.30 at night.  Complainant made a call at 100 number and 101 at morning of 23.09.2014 and the police came.  The complainant also made a call at the office of respondents and informed about the same incident on 23.09.2014.  The officer of respondent was given complaint no.18004254555 dated 23.09.2014.  The customer care gave complaint no. 14092301976.  Their executive namely Mr. Jagat inspected the house and took the photographs of burnt clothes and other goods.  The complainant was told that they have sent the report to their head office and within 2-3 days, they will compensate to the complainant.

            It has been stated that the goods purchased by the complainant from respondent no. 1 were defective for which respondent no. 1 and 2 were jointly responsible.  Thus, it has been stated that OP have failed to provide any service, which was assured and there was clear deficiency of service on the part of respondent no. 1 and 2.  Hence, the complainant have claimed a refund of the cost of AC with compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of mental agony and pain with cost of litigation of Rs. 15,000/-.    

3.         In the WS filed on behalf of OP-2 &3, they have taken various pleas stating that there was no manufacturing defect in the AC, which was working perfectly OK.  They received a call on 23.09.2014 on which their engineer   Mr. Jagat visited the house and made service report and inspected the site thoroughly.  He took photographs of the AC which they have annexed as Annex. R-1.  It has been stated that AC in question was not having any signs of blast.  Only wiring of the house was burnt and gadgets connected with the same were also burnt.  It was the case of sparking in the wire and not of blast in the AC.  There was short circuit in the wire.  There was constant fluctuation in the voltage or the complainant got using power beyond the sanctioned load.  Internal parts of AC were found OK.  The compressor and the wire of compressor were in OK condition.  It has further been stated that the facts stated to the service engineer Mr. Jagat were different as it was stated to him that at about 2 p.m. in the night, the complainant woke up and saw outside the window, which was just above the AC, some fire was shown on the right side of the balcony.  Suddenly, after realizing the occurrence of fire, the complainant took the keys and ran away with his wife from the house and also stated that “on that very moment AC was running and there saw no problem in running of the AC”.  However, in the complaint, he has narrated the different facts.  Other facts have also been denied. 

            No reply has been filed on behalf of OP-1.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP no. 2 and 3 has been filed by the complainant  wherein the complainant denied all the contents of the WS and reiterated the contents of his complaint. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            In defence, OP- 2 and 3 have examined Shri Rajeev Ranjen, Branch Service Manager of M/s. Voltas Limited deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-2 & 3 that the AC was not defective; the blast was not due to AC, but it was due to sparking in the wire.  AC compressor was found to be OK. 

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that the blast was due to defective AC. 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of both the witnesses and the documents placed on record.  Firstly, the testimony of Rajeev Ranjen, Branch Service Manager of OP-2 & 3 is taken up.  He has stated in his testimony that on the day of incidence, their service engineer Mr. Jagat visited the site and gave his service report, which are exhibited RW1/1, RW1/2 and RW1/3.  He has further stated in his testimony that the occurrence of fire was not because of the reasons of blast in the AC, it was due to wiring of the house.  Though, this witness has filed the service report, but they have not got it checked by their lab to show whether the AC was not defective.  Mere visiting the site and filing the service report does not serve any purpose in the absence of any detailed technical report.

            If a look is made to the testimony of Deepak Joshi, the complainant has stated in his testimony that 5 years compressor warranty of AC was given to the complainant, which he purchased on 27.05.2013.  He has stated in his evidence that the executive of respondent, who visited the site assured him that he will send his report, but he did not do so.  His claim has been that he was given the defective AC.  The fact that no detailed report has been filed on behalf of OP showing that the AC was not defective, the fact remains that AC, which was purchased by the complainant, must have some defect, which have led to the fire in the house. 

The plea taken on behalf of respondent that the fire took place due to short circuit cannot be accepted in the absence of any report.  Thus, the fact remains that there has been deficiency on the part of OP-2 & 3 for which they have to be held responsible.  That being so, the liability is fastened on Voltas Service Centre (OP-2) and Voltas Limited (OP-3) jointly.  Therefore, it is ordered that the complainant be refunded a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards cost of AC, compensation and litigation charges.  This amount of Rs. 30,000/- will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.  The awarded amount be paid within 45 days. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                    Member              

     

 

  

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President