BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.   196 of 2018                                                             

                                                           Date of Institution         :           16.07.2018                                                                         

                                                            Date of Decision   :           15.05.2019

Gulab Chand Jain, aged 48 years, son of Shri Dhan Mal, resident of Ward No.10, Gali Dakotanwali, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.                                                                                                                                              ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. Thind Electronics, Near Red Cross Office, Rania Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its proprietor.

2. Voltas Service Centre, Near Milan Palace, Barnala Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Manager/Incharge.

3. Voltas Limited, A-42, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044, through its Manager.

      ...…Opposite parties.       

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT                                                                

                  SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL……MEMBER.                                                        

                  MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.       

Present:       Ms. Anita Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Pankaj Singhal, Advocate for Op No.1.

Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for Ops No.2 &3

ORDER

                                In brief, the case of complainant is that the complainant purchased a Voltas Air conditioner 1.5 Ton Sr. No.4512058D16E007605 17062109752 from op no.1 on 21.06.2017 vide bill no.2670 for a sum of Rs.37,000/-. At that time, the complainant was given 1+5 years warranty against all manufacturing defects in the said air conditioner. After purchase of the said air conditioner, the complainant got installed the same at his premises and started making use of the same. Since the installation of the aforesaid air conditioner, its cooling was not proper, rather, the said air conditioner used to give less cooling. The complainant noticing this defect in the air conditioner reported the same to op no.1, but the op no.1 did not give any heed to the same. Even thereafter, on several occasions, the complainant lodged the complaints with ops about above defect in the air conditioner, but it is very strange that none came to the premises to the complainant to attend the complaint of the complainant. It appears that there is manufacturing defect in the above air conditioner which cannot be removed by way of repairs and that is why the ops have not attended the complaints lodged by the complainant and also requested the ops number of times for redressal of his grievance but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint. 

2.                On notice, Op No.1 appeared and filed separate written statement in which he has taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability, cause of action and concealed the true and material facts from this forum. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached the answering op and no complaint whatsoever was ever lodged by him. The complainant is not at all entitled neither to the replacement of the product nor to the refund of the amount of price of the same.

           Ops No.2 and 3 also filed written statement and submitted that the complaint of the complainant false and fabricated story. The true fact of the complaint are that the air conditioner of the complainant working properly and smoothly and there is no manufacturing defect in it. The present complaint filed by the complainant without any technical expert report and it is not maintainable at all without complying with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory in nature and the complainant has filed the present false complaint only to cheat the ops. Hence, the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs, in the interest of justice.

3.                The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.C1 his own supporting affidavit, Bill Ex.C2, whereas opposite parties have tendered the affidavit of Karnail Singh Ex.RW1/A. 

4.            We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5.                In order to prove his complaint, the complainant has tendered the affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has deposed and reiterated the averment made in the complaint. He has tendered the sale invoice dated 21.6.2017 regarding purchasing of the Air Conditioner for Rs.37,000/-.

6.                 On the other hand, opposite parties have tendered the affidavit of Karnail Singh Ex.RW1/A, in which  he has deposed in terms of the defence plea of the ops in the written statement.

7.                  Though, the complainant has alleged in his complaint that he has purchased a Voltas Air conditioner 1.5 Ton Sr. No.4512058D16E007605 17062109752 from op no.1 on 21.06.2017 vide bill no.2670 for a sum of Rs.37,000/-. At that time, the complainant was given 1+5 years warranty against all manufacturing defects in the said air conditioner. After purchase of the said air conditioner, the complainant got installed the same at his premises and started making use of the same. Since the installation of the aforesaid air conditioner, its cooling was not proper, rather, the said air conditioner used to give less cooling. The complainant noticing this defect in the air conditioner reported the same to op no.1, but the op no.1 did not give any heed to the same. Even thereafter, on several occasions, the complainant lodged the complaints with ops about above defect in the air conditioner, but it is very strange that none came to the premises to the complainant to attend the complaint of the complainant.

8.                Though, the complainant has alleged some manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner but, however, the complainant has not placed on record any opinion of expert, by which, it has been observed that there is a manufacturing defect in the Air Conditioner of the complainant. No doubt, it is the legal obligation of the op to provide after sale service to the customer like complainant in order to redress the grievance qua the working of their product like Air Conditioner. The complainant has alleged that he approached the ops many times but they did not send any person to attend his complaint. The complainant has not placed any document from which it can be presumed that he ever approached the ops with any grievance of defect in the Air Conditioner, but however, it is legal obligation of the ops to provide the free service to the complainant during the warranty of the product, if there is any defect in the product of the complainant. 

9.                In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the ops to inspect and verify the defect, if any in the Air Conditioner of the complainant and make the same defect free, without any costs, in order to give proper cooling at the place of installation of the Air Conditioner.  We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in open Forum.                                                         President,

Dated:  15.05.2019.             Member               Member        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.