Haryana

Ambala

CC/30/2019

Mamta Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.K. Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Gautam Chadha

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  30 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution         :  30.01.2019.

                                                          Date of decision   : 28.06.2019.

 

Mamta Rani W/o Shri Kuldeep Kumar, R/o # 175, Palika Vihar, near Sales Tax Office, Ambala City, Haryana.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

 

 

1. V.K. Enterprises, 9700/6, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City, Haryana.
2. Gulati Electronics, 45, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana.
3. Voltas Limited, Voltas House, ‘A’ Block, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai, Maharastra.

 

     ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri Gautam Chadha, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OPs ex parte.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the defective air conditioner with the new one or to repay/refund the amount of Rs.34,500/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of invoice till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by her for the last one year.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that on 02.05.2018, the complainant had purchased a Voltas air conditioner (hereinafter referred to as “AC”) from the OP No.1. The OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the said AC and OP No.2 is its authorized Service Centre. Within a week of installation of the said AC, it developed cooling problem, for which, she personally met with OP No.1 to rectify the problem, who told her to contact the call centre of Voltas Limited i.e. OP No.3. Accordingly, she made a complaint in the call centre of Voltas Limited on 15.05.2018 vide Service Request No.18051517679, which was redirected to the OP No.2, whose service technician visited her premises and checked the AC and assured its proper working. However, within a few days, the same problem reoccurred and on 18.06.2018, she again made a complaint in the call centre of Voltas Ltd. vide Service Request No.18061816495 and the same was again redirected to OP No.2, whose service technician again visited her premises, filled up the gas in the AC and assured its proper working. However, within a few days, the said problem reoccurred and she made complaints in the call centre of Voltas Ltd. on 10.07.2018, 13.07.2018 and 15.07.2018 and the same were registered vide Service Request Nos.18071010129, 18071309057 and 18071502952 respectively. But unfortunately, the inefficiency and incompetence on the part of service technicians continued and she had to spend the entire summer season without availing the cooling benefits of the newly purchased AC. On 02.01.2019, she also served a legal notice to all the OPs through registered post/speed post to rectify the AC problem, but all in vain. By not rectifying the problem of the AC, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Separate registered notices were issued to OPs No.1 to 3, but none has turned up on their behalf, accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.03.2019.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the AC in question from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 vide invoice dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure C-1). The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that grievance of the complainant is that within a week of purchase of said AC, there was cooling problem, inspite of repeated repairs by the OP No.2, the same could not be set right, this fact got proved from the emails Annexure C2 to Annexure C6. From the email dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure C-2), it is clear that the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP No.3 with regard to defect in her AC, purchased on 02.05.2018, which shows that the it got defective within about 15 days from the date of its purchase. It may be stated here that none of the OPs have preferred to appear before this Forum and rebut the above said version put forth by the complainant and thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant which is duly supported by her affidavit and other supporting documents. Since the AC of the complainant got defective within 15 days from the date of its purchase and the OP No.2, the authorized service centre of the OP No.3, inspite of repeated repairs, could not be able to rectify the problem occurred in it, therefore, the OP No.1 being the seller and OP No.3 being the manufacturer, are liable to replace the said defective AC with the new one or to pay the value of the AC to the complainant. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her alongwith litigation expenses. Since the OP No.2 is the service centre of OP No.3, therefore, no liability can be fastened against it and the complaint filed against it, is liable to be dismissed.  

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismissed the present complaint against the OP No.2 and allow the same against OPs No.1 & 3 and direct them in the following manner:-

1. To replace the defective AC in question with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant. If they are not in position to replace the same, then refund the amount of Rs.34,500/-, i.e. the price of the AC, alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 30.01.2019 i.e. the date of the filing of complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

7.                The OPs No.1 & 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :28.06.2019.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President