Delhi

StateCommission

FA/595/2014

VIRENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGAM ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 21.12.2017

First Appeal No. 595/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 16.05.2014 passed in complaint case No. 220/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III Janakpuri New Delhi-110058)

In the matter of:

Virender Singh

WZ-1552A, Nangal Raya

New Delhi-110046                                 ..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Sargam Electronics

GL-11, Jail Road

Hari Nagar

New Delhi-110058

 

2. Voltas Ltd.

A-43, M.C.I.E. Mathura Road

New Delhi-110044                             .........Respondents

                                                                  

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                              Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                    Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

1.         Present appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by appellant/complainant Sh. Vijender Singh against the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum III Janakpuri New Delhi-58. By the aforesaid order the Ld. District Forum hasdirected the respondent/OP to repair the AC of the complainant and remove the defects, if any. Besides this, a compensationof Rs. 4000/- has also been awarded to the appellant/complainant.
2.         Brief facts of the case are that on 05.04.2012, the appellant/complainant had purchased one split AC of the respondent/OP company from Sargam Electronics i.e. respondent-1/OP-3 for Rs. 30,000/- and spent Rs. 9000/- towards installation. The grievance of the complainant was that since the date of installation there was leakage of water from the indoor unit of the AC.  The AC created some noise and was not giving complete cooling also. The appellant/complainant lodged a complaint to the customer care number of respondent-2/OP-2on 12.04.2012, 13.04.2012, 15.04.2012, 17.04.2012, 19.04.2012, 22.04.2012 and 25.04.2012 but the respondent-2/OP-2 did not pay any heed to his request. Therefore, appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum on 30.04.2012 with a prayer to refund the cost of the AC alongwith installation charges and also Rs. 5000/- towards harassment.
3.         Notice was issued to the respondents/OPs. Respondent-2/OP-2 who appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. Respondent-2/OP-2 submitted that on directions given by the Ld. District Forum on 03.07.2012 service engineer, Sh. Binku visited the premises of the appellant/complainant on 19.07.2012 but appellant/complainant did not allow him to enter his house. Thereafter on 30.07.2012, the Ld. District Forum again directed the respondent-2/OP-2 to inspect the AC during the course of the day and ordered the complainant’s son, who appeared in person before the forum to allow the service engineer to enter into the house so that the error could be rectified. On that very date i.e. on 30.07.2012 at around 03:45 pm, the service engineer of the respondent-2/OP-2 visited the premises of the complainant but again complainant did not allow him to inspect the unit and also abused and threatened him. It was alleged that Sh. V P Singh Advocate also called the appellant/complainant on his mobile requesting him to allow the service engineer to inspect the AC but the appellant/complainant misbehaved with the Advocate also. Respondent-2/OP-2 submitted before the Ld. District Forum that the appellant/complainant wasabusing the process of law by not allowing him to inspect the AC as on one hand the appellant/complainant was stating that the AC was not working and defectiveon the other hand when the service engineer was goingto inspect the unit the appellant/complainant was not allowing him to inspect the AC. Further, respondent-2/OP-2 had submitted that the AC had no manufacturing defect and had also denied any leakage of water from the indoor unit, noise or any defect in cooling. It was also submitted that there was no complaint recorded at customer care number of the respondent-2/OP-2. It was also denied that any technician and told the appellant/complainant that the water leakage and noise shall continue to persist in the AC. It was alleged that the AC was checked to the satisfaction of the appellant/complainant on 29.04.2012 and denied any harassment or deficiency in service on its part.
4.         After considering the evidence by way of affidavit filed by the parties and arguments,Ld. District Forum directed respondent/complainant as under:

“OP shall repair the AC of the complainant and shall remove the defects if any to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and compensation of Rs. 4000/- is awarded to the complainant for deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not attending his complaint immediately.”

 

5.      Not satisfied with the order of the Ld. District Forum appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
6.     We have heard appellant/complainant who has appeared in person and Ld. Counsel for the respondent-2/OP-2.
7.     The sole ground of the appellant/complainant to challenge the impugned order is that the respondent-2/OP-2 was deficient in service as it did not immediately attend the complaint of the appellant/complainant, as the defect occurred immediately after purchase of the AC hence he is entitled to get the refund of Rs. 30,000/- the cost of the ACalongwith installation charges of Rs. 9000/- with interest of 24% p.a. 
8.      Appellant/complainant has filed a copy of the bill showing that AC was purchased on 05.04.2012 by paying of Rs. 30,000/-. Except that no other documents were filed by him. There is no dispute between the parties that AC was purchased on 05.04.2012 and was installed after 1 or 2 days. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that since the date of installation he was lodging complaints with the respondent-2/OP-2but his complaint was not attended. This contention of the appellant/complainant has not been supported by any evidence. On the other hand, respondent-2/OP-2 on the first available opportunity offered to get the AC checked immediately and repaired also. The respondent/OP had filed photocopy of the customer service report on which call date is recorded as 29.04.2012. It is observed by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned order that the allegation made by the respondent-2/OP-2 in written reply against the appellant/complainant regarding his conduct are duly supported and corroborated by court proceedings as twice under the instructions of the forum a technician was sent to the premises of the appellant/complainant to check the AC but he did not let the technician to enter the premises inspite of the specific directions of the Ld. District Forum. Hence observation of the Ld. District Forum is correct that when the appellant/complainant is not allowing the service provider /technician to attend to the complaint and inspect the AC then how could the problem be resolved. Ld. District Forum in its order observed that on several occasions the District Forum tried to resolve the problem but the appellant/complainant was not ready to settle for anything except of refund of Rs. 39,000/- spent by him on purchase and installation of the AC. It is also observed by the District Forum that the assumption of the complainant is that once he has approached the consumer forum he can dictate his terms to the forum or to the respondents/OPs. It is rightly held by the Ld. District Forum that the warranty provided by the manufacturer is to remove the defect and not to replace or refund. Refund can be ordered only if the defect is beyond repairs. The appellant/complainant has failed to provide any evidence that the AC has any manufacturing defect. The grievance of the appellant/complainant that there is a leakage of water is a petty installation defect in a split AC. Had the appellant/complainant allowed the service technician to inspect the AC, problem could have been resolved. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal before us we have tried on many occasions to settle the matter but all our efforts have gone in vain as the appellant/complainant has not co-operated with the technician of respondent/OP-2. Looking at the conduct of the appellant/complainant of not allowing the technician to check the AC we presume that his AC is working properly and he is trying to misuse the process of law just to seek refund of the price of the AC. The terms and conditions of the warrantyhave been placed on record by the appellant/complainant himself and the relevant terms and conditions of the warranty read as follows:

“1. Repairs or replacement of any part or parts except plastic parts like Grill, louvers etc. of the air conditioner for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase, when we identify the defects as due to faulty material or workmanship and not due to improper usage, or faulty electric supply/connection.

2. The defective part/material shall be replaced with a functionally working equivalent part material.

3. Free after-sales service during the abovementioned period is available within the municipal limits of the city or town.

Voltas Guarantees to honour your abovementioned rights.

You may please note

1. Repair or replacement of parts under your entitlement would be carried out by the nearest Voltas Service Station/Authorised Dealer. In case your air conditioner requires repairs at the workshop our representative will advise you accordingly.
2. Your entitlement mentioned above is confined to repair and replacement of the defective parts only and does not cover any consequential or resulting liability, damage or loss or replacement of the air conditioner itself or refund of the price.”

 

9.     In view of the above terms and conditions of the warranty, it is clear that the terms of warranty do not provide for refund of the costs of the product. The only entitlement of the complaint is for cost of repair of the product.
10. As discussed above, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Ld. District Forum. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits.
11. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

    

(JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL)

PRESIDENT 

 

(SALMA NOOR)​

MEMBER