Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/434/2015

Ajit Redhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Croma Store - Opp.Party(s)

In person

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/434/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	13/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	20/04/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ajit Redhu son of Sh. Dalbir Singh, resident of House No.305, GH-14, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 5, Panchkula – 134109.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1)  The Croma Store, SCO 1094-1095, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

(2)  Electronic Planet, through its Authorized Representative, House No.355, Ground Floor, Maloya near Bus Stand, Sector 39(West), Chandigarh (deleted vide order dated 18.01.2016).

 

(3)  Voltas Head Office, through its Branch Head, UPBG, SCO No. 201-202-203, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OPs No.1 and 3	:	Sh. Sanjay Judge, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Deleted

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased a 1 Ton window AC (3 star) make Voltas from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.22,700/- on 10.6.2014 vide invoice Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that after getting the 1^st free service, the Complainant observed that the AC was not working properly and was giving foul smell. In this regard, a Complaint was lodged with the Voltas Customer Care, upon which their Technicians visited the Complainant’s house, but could not find any solution and rather offered to do the 2^nd service within a week. It has been further alleged that despite conducting the 2^nd service the problem in the AC remained the same and it was difficult to stay in the room for a minute. Thereafter, the Technicians of the Company paid umpteen number of visits but they failed to resolve the issue. It has been averred that one of the Technicians told the Complainant that there was a leakage of chemical in the compressor. The Complainant besides making telephonic calls also sent e-mails with regard to the aforesaid issue, but the same failed to fructify. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant was thus constrained to file the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

 

3.     In view of the endorsement made by the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 18.01.2016.

 

 

4.     Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement has urged that there was no specific defect mentioned by the Complainant in his Complaint. Further, there was no expert report with regard to the allegation of leakage of chemical in the compressor. It has been submitted that in case there is any defect in the Compressor, the warranty for the Compressor only is covered for five years. It has been pleaded that whenever the Complaint was lodged by the Complainant the same was promptly attended to and the e-mails sent by him were duly acknowledged. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

5.     Opposite Party No. 3 in its written statement while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that no specific defect has been mentioned by the Complainant in the entire Complaint and that there was no expert report with regard to the allegation of leakage of chemical in the compressor. It has been submitted that whenever the Complaint was lodged the same was promptly attended to. Also, the e-mails sent by the Complainant were duly acknowledged by the Voltas Care Centre. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

6.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.3 have been controverted.

 

 

7.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

8.     We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and have perused the record. 

 

 

9.     Evidently, there is no expert report adduced by the Complainant with regard to his allegations of leakage of chemical in the compressor. Indisputably, whenever the Complaint was lodged, it was promptly attended to, and the e-mails sent by the Complainant were duly acknowledged by the Voltas Care Centre as the replies thereof are annexed by the Complainant himself along with the Complaint.

 

 

10.     For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    

 

 

11.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th April, 2016                             

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”