Delhi

East Delhi

CC/438/2012

RAM AVTAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGAM ELEC. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                  CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.438/2012
 

Sh. RAM AVTAR

S/O Sh. KISHAN LAL

R/O 284/15 PANDEY ROAD DOONGAR MOHALLA

SHAHDARA DELHI-32

 

Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. SARGAM ELECTRONICS

A-1 KANTI NAGAR EXTN., MAIN ROAD

DELHI-110032

2. THE VOLTAS COMPANY

VOLTAS HOUSE “A”

DR. BABASAHAB AMBEDKAR ROAD

CHINCHPOKLI MUMBAI-400033

 

                        

Opposite Parties

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 04/07/2012

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 28/01/2016

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased one AC from the Respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.29,000/-Voltas Vertis Gemini 1.5 ton split AC vide invoice No.07020174673. Since from the very first day lot of noise was coming from the AC and cooling was not effective. The water out flow was not at all regulated and it was coming out from the different places of the AC. It was complained to the Respondent No.1 but no reply was given. The complainant made request to the Respondent No.2 on their Telephone No.18004254555 and 02266656666 but no satisfactory reply was given. Complaint No. 12 MY 0508358 was given on 05/05/2012. The complainant has prayed for the refund of the entire amount of Rs.29,000/-  and Rs.25000/- as cost of litigation and refund of Rs.10,000/- installation charges.

            Respondent No.2 filed their reply wherein it is admitted that the AC in question has a minor problem of gas leakage. The compressor/ outdoor unit have already been replaced by the service engineer of the Respondent and now the AC in question is working properly. The product has no manufacturing defect and if the Complainant is still aggrieved, the matter can be deal with as per 13(1) (C) by calling the report from the independent authority. On the complaint of the Complainant technician inspected the AC, there was no problem of noise and there was not flow of water/leakage reported by the technician, every call of the Complainant was duly attended by the technician. The fan blade was replaced and the gas was charged in the AC. There is no merit in this complaint and it deserves dismissal.

            In the replication filed by the Complainant, they have denied the allegation of the Respondent. It is alleged that even after the repairing cooling was not there, the fan of the said AC was broken due to malfunctioning of the AC in presence of the worker of the Respondent. The entire function of the AC were closed. The blades of the indoor unit were also broken despite repair. The AC did not start functioning.

            Both the parties have filed their Affidavits.

            Heard the arguments and perused the record.

            It is contended on behalf of the Complainant that the allegation of the Complainant are stand proved by the self admission of the Respondent that the AC was suffering from gas leakage problem and the compressor outdoor unit was replaced by the service centre. They have also admitted that the fan blade was replaced and the gas was charged on complaint No.12 MY 0508358. On the contrary the Respondent submitted that each and every complaint of the Complainant was attended. They have filed Annexure-1 service report dated 11/05/2012 showing gas leakage fan blade replacement and AC working thereafter perfectly. Respondent placed emphasis on the point that Complainant has jotted down his signature on the job sheet that repair has been carried out as per specification. It has been argued that the replacement of the compressor, fans and fan blades and repeated leakage of the gas is sufficient proof of the fact that the AC is in question is suffering from manufacturing defects. Had there been no manufacturing defects, no question of replacing the compressor and other parts of the AC would have arisen within a short span of time. We find substance in the submission of the Complainant. The AC if built according to the specification and quality as claimed should have given at least service during the warranty period of compressor i.e. five year. Here, in this case the compressor was replaced within a short period of it s purchase, more so, the fan blade were broken, may be because of defective parts used in the AC manufacturing. All these facts shows that the AC in question is suffering from manufacturing defects, the same cannot be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and could not give the service as required as it is clear from the affidavit of the complainant. The repeated leakage of the gas is another fact which point out the bad quality of the product.

            In these circumstances the plea of the Respondent that it was free from manufacturing defect cannot be accepted.

            We allow this complaint. We direct the Respondent to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.29,000/-. Complainant shall handover the whole unit to the Respondent on receiving the cheque or DD from the Respondent. Taking all the facts into consideration, we award only Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation. Let all the amount be paid within 45 days from the date of the order.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT