THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 171 of 2014
Date of Institution : 26.3.2014
Date of Decision : 16.06.2015
Pawan Kumar S/o Mehar Chand R/o Gharinda, Tehsil & District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Surinder Radio & Electric Works, Partap Bazar, Chheharta, Amritsar through its Principal Officer/Authorized Person
Luck Voltas A.C. Service through its Principal Officer/Authorized person, New Mohini Park, Opposite Khalsa College for Women, Amritsar
Voltas Limited through its Principal Officer/Authorized Person, Voltas House, A Block, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedakar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Anil Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.Ajay Shanker,Advocate
For opposite parties No.2&3: Sh. Sanjeev Arora,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Vinod Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Split AC of Voltas 1.5 Ton from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 14167 dated 21.5.2013 for Rs. 25,500/-. According to the complainant the AC unit was installed by the Engineers/employees of opposite parties No. 1 & 3 at his residence. Complainant was surprised when the AC did not function as per assurance of the opposite party No.1 as the cooling of the same was not upto the mark and lot of problems started coming into the notice of the complainant after its installation. However, one major problem was of leakage of water from its front panel. The complainant brought these defects to the notice of opposite party No.1, who asked the complainant to approach opposite party No.2 in order to resolve the defect in the AC. A complaint was lodged on 26.5.2013 vide complaint No. 2603397 but nobody appraoched the complainant to resolve the defect in the AC. Thereafter complaint made complaints vide No. 13SP/0600912 and 13AU/0700755 at call centre of opposite party No.3. But again nobody approached the complainant to remove the grievance of the complainant. Then complainant approached opposite party No.2 and brought the
-3-
entire facts to their notice . Then opposite party No.2 sent their mechanics to the house of the complainant and they removed the AC unit and took it to their service centre on 27.9.2013 . Thereafter complainant approached opposite party No.1 and 2 several times, but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant nor the defect in the AC units regarding leakage of water from its front panel was removed by the mechanic of the opposite party and they put lame excuses that they have already placed the order before opposite party No.3 and they are sending a new internal AC unit, as soon as they receive the new internal AC unit from opposite party No.3, they would inform the complainant about the same. Complainant has alleged that he kept on waiting the call from the side of the opposite party for some weeks and then served a legal notice dated 29.11.2013, but the opposite party neither replied to the said legal notice nor the defect in the AC was removed .Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to remove the defective AC unit and to supply the new AC unit . Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the product purchased by the complainant is under warranty and he was asked to approach opposite party No.2, who is authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 in order to resolve the defect. Thereafter complainant himself went to the opposite party No.2 and brought the entire facts to their notice. It was
-4-
denied that complainant time and again approached opposite parties No.1 & 2 but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant nor the defect of the AC unit was removed by the mechanic of opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their written version have admitted that complainant has purchased the Split AC worth Rs. 25500/- from opposite party No.1. It was denied that the said AC was installed by the engineers/employees of the opposite party No.1. Infact the said AC was installed by the complainant from some private mechanics. It was denied that the said AC did not function as per the assurance of opposite party No.1 as the cooling of the same was not upto the mark and there are lot of problems. It was denied that complainant complained about the manufacturing defect in the said AC, to the notice of opposite party No.1. It was denied that any complaint bearing No. 2603397 was lodged by the complainant, so there is no question of resolving the said complaint. Complainant for the first time lodged complaint No. 13AU/0700755 on 7.8.2013 at the call centre of the opposite party and the same was attended by the mechanic of opposite party No.2 , who resolved the problem of leakage of water of the said AC to the satisfaction of the complainant. Then the complainant again lodged complaint No. 13SP/600912 on 7.9.2013 and the same was again attended by the mechanic of the opposite party No.2 . After that the opposite parties decided to change the whole inner unit of the
-5-
AC with new one . It was submitted that on 27.9.2013 opposite party No.2 sent their mechanic to install the new inner unit of the said AC but the complainant requested the opposite party not to install the same as the summer season was over which was accepted by the opposite parties . It was admitted that complainant served a legal notice dated 29.11.2013 to the opposite parties to remove the defect which the opposite parties replied telephonically to the complainant that as the complainant himself requested not to install the said inner unit because the summer season is over but the opposite parties are ready to install the inner unit of the AC , if the complainant so desires. But the complainant replied on telephone that he is ready to install inner unit of the AC, if the opposite parties also pay Rs. 5000/- as fee of legal noice and Rs. 50000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, additional affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3, copy of delivery challan Ex.C-4, copy of notice Ex,.C-5, postal receipts Ex.C-6, affidavit of Sukhjinder Singh Ex.C-7.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Surinder Singh Ex.OP1/1, copy of bill dated 21.5.2013 Ex.OP1/2.
6. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Karanvir Singh Kanwar Ex.OP2,3/1.
-6-
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant purchased one Split 1.5 ton AC of Voltas from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 21.5.2013 Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 25,500/-. The said AC was installed by the engineers/employees of opposite parties No.1 & 3. The complainant alleges that the said AC did not function properly as per assurance of opposite party No.1 as the cooling of the same was not upto the mark. There was leakage of water from the front panel of the AC. The complainant brought these defects in the AC, to the notice of opposite party No.1 and the complainant was advised to approach opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.3. Resultantly the complainant lodged complaint bearing No. 2603397 dated 26.5.2013. But no engineer /mechanic from opposite parties No.1 to 3 came to the premises of the complainant to resolve the complaint. Thereafter the complainant made complaints vide No.13SP/0600912 and 13AU/0700755 at call centre of opposite party No.3. Even then no mechanic /person approached the complainant from the opposite party to remove the defects in the said AC. Thereafter the complainant personally visited
-7-
the office of opposite party No.2 and lodged complaint. Then opposite party No.2 sent their mechanic to the house of the complainant and they removed the AC unit and took it to their service station on 27.9.2013 vide delivery challan No.7 dated 27.9.2013 Ex.C-4. But the opposite party No.2 also failed to remove the defects in the AC particularly the defect of leakage of water from its front panel ,rather they assigned lame excuses that they would send a new internal AC unit to the premises of the complainant as soon as they received the same from the opposite party No.3 and they would inform the complainant about the same . The complainant kept on waiting call from the side of opposite party No.2. But no call was received by the complainant. Then the complainant served legal notice dated 29.11.2013 Ex.C-5 upon the opposite parties No.1 to 3 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C-6. But the opposite parties neither sent any reply to the said legal notice nor removed the defects in the AC nor returned the AC to the complainant despite the fact that AC was still under warranty period. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that they only sold the product duly manufactured by opposite party No.3. During the period of warranty, it is opposite parties No.2 & 3 who are responsible for removing any defect in the AC in question of the complainant. As such opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable for
-8-
any lapse on the part of opposite parties No.2 & 3.
10. Whereas case of opposite parties No.2 & 3 is that 1.5 ton split AC of Voltas was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 vide invoice Ex.C-3 on 21.5.2013 for a sum of Rs. 25500/-. However, they denied that AC was installed by the engineers/employees of opposite parties. They also denied that said AC did not function properly and the cooling of the same was not upto the mark or that there was any problem of leakage of water from its front panel nor there is any manufacturing defect in the AC in question. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 submitted that for the first time the complainant lodged complaint No. 13AU/0700755 on 7.8.2013 at the call centre of opposite parties regarding non functional of the AC in question. The said complaint was attended by the mechanic of opposite party No.2 and solved the problem of leakage of the said AC. Thereafter the complainant lodged complaint No. 13SP/0600912 dated 7.9.2013 at the call centre of opposite parties regarding the same problem of leakage in the said AC which was again attended by the mechanic of opposite party No.2 and found that the same problem of leakage in the said AC is recurring again and again. So the opposite parties decided the change the whole inner unit of the said AC with new one to the satisfaction of the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 admitted that when the complainant brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of opposite party No.2, they sent their mechanic on 27.9.2013 to remove the said AC and installed the new inner
-9-
unit of the said AC. But the complainant requested the opposite parties not to install the said inner unit as the summer season was over. As such the opposite parties accepted the request of the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 admitted the receipt of the legal notice dated 29.11.2013 but denied that the opposite parties did not submit any reply. They replied telephonically to the complainant. Opposite parties are ready to install the inner unit of the said AC, if the complainant so desires. But the complainant replied on telephone that he is ready to install the inner unit of the said AC, if the opposite parties also pay Rs. 5000/- fee of the legal notice and Rs. 50000/- as compensation to the complainant for the harassment, pain and agony suffered by the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties No.2 & 3 submitted that under these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.2 & 3 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased 1.5 ton Voltas Split AC from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 21.5.2013 Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 25500/-. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the said AC did not function properly which has major problem of leakage of water from its front panel. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 for the removal of the said defect in the AC. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their written version have admitted that they received the complaint on 7.8.2013 at their call centre and the
-10-
mechanic of opposite party No.1 went to the premises of the complainant and resolved the problem of leakage of water of the said AC. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 further admitted that complainant again lodged complaint on 7.9.2013 at the call centre of the opposite parties with the same problem of leakage of water in the said AC which was again attended by the mechanic of opposite party No.2 and found that the same problem of leakage of water in the said AC is recurring time and again. So the opposite parties decided to change the whole inner unit of the said AC with new one to the satisfaction of the complainant. But inspite of that the opposite parties did not even change the inner unit of the AC of the complainant despite the fact that legal notice dated 29.11.2013 Ex.C-5 was served by the complainant upon the opposite parties through registered post and this fact has also been admitted by opposite parties No.2 & 3 that they received the legal notice from the complainant. However, they submitted that they replied this legal notice to the complainant telephonically. But no evidence has been produced by the opposite parties No.2 & 3 regarding reply to the legal notice submitted by the opposite parties to the complainant nor they mentioned what were the contents of the reply and whether the complainant was satisfied. All this shows that the AC purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties is not repairable, as such it has inherent manufacturing defects. So the opposite parties are liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model.
-11-
12. Consequently the complaint is allowed with costs and the opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the entire split AC with new one of same make and model within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the replacement is not possible, to refund the amount of AC i.e. Rs. 25500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
16.06.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
