BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No. 395 of 2014 Date of Institution: 17.10.2014
Date of Decision: 23.1.2015
Kewal Krishan Ahuja, aged 56 years, son of Kashmiri Lal, resident of Street No.5, Adarsh Nagar Fazilka, Tehsil and District Fazilka.
...... Complainant
Versus
1. Varindera Electronics, Court Road, Opposite Fire Brigade, Fazilka through its proprietor.
2. Voltas, SAC Gold-2S AC’s with I.Q, Regd. Office: Unitary Products Business Group, Voltas House, “A”, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033, through its Managing Director.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : E x-p a r t e
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Lovejit Pal Singh, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Voltas A.C. Split (One Tonne) manufactured by opposite party No.2 from
C.C. No.395 of 2014 \\2//
opposite party No.1, vide invoice No.1586 dated 24.3.2014 with a warranty of 12 months of A.C. and 5 years warranty of its compressor. Further it has been pleaded that A.C. in question hardly worked a month in its OK condition, thereafter cooling of the same was ceased. Number of times complaints were made to the opposite parties and reminders were given to opposite parties through their service centre, Chandigarh having toll free number. Opposite parties sent a mechanic, who, after filling the gas, told every time that the same is in O.K. condition, but all in vain. Further it has been pleaded that on 25.9.2014, the complainant again made complaint to opposite parties through their above said toll free number and he further suggested that complainant may approach opposite party No.2 directly for replacement of the same. Repeated requests were made by the complainant to the opposite parties to refund the value of the above said A.C, but they put off the matter on one pretext or other. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs.22,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. Further a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 did not appear before this Forum despite service of notice. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-
C.C. No.395 of 2014 \\3//
parte vide order dated 5.12.2014.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that whenever the complainant made complaint, their representative visited the house of the complainant and every time repaired the A.C. in question. A.C. in question is working properly and running in good condition and there was no defect in the A.C. in question and all the defects have already been removed and at present the A.C. in question is in good working condition. There is no manufacturing defect in the A.C. in question. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased one Voltas Air Conditioner (One Tonne), manufactured by opposite party No.2, from opposite party No.1 vide Retail Invoice dated
C.C. No.395 of 2014 \\4//
24.3.2014 Ex.C-2 with a Warranty of 12 months of A.C. and 5 years warranty of its compressor. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have supplied defective Air Conditioner to him having manufacturing defect, as a result of which the Air Conditioner in question has not been put in proper working condition by the opposite parties despite repeated repairs by them. In para No.2 of the complaint, the complainant has fully described the date, number and nature of complaints made by him to the opposite parties as well as action taken by the opposite parties on his complaints. Detail of complaints and reminders thereto made to the opposite parties has also been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-6. In relevant para of the written reply of opposite party No.2 on merits, opposite party No.2 has simply stated that whenever the complainant made complaint, their representative visited the house of the complainant and every time repaired the Air Conditioner in question. A perusal of detail of complaints described in para No.2 of the complaint reveals that all the complaints have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding one and same defect in the Air Conditioner in question i.e. cooling problem with the remarks “No Cooling” and every time gas refilling/repair was carried out by the opposite parties. Occurring of one and the same defect time and again despite repeated repairs itself leads to the conclusion that there is some manufacturing defect in the Air
C.C. No.395 of 2014 \\5//
Conditioner in question, as a result of which the opposite parties have failed to rectify its defect of non-cooling despite repeated repairs and gas refilling. In “Jugnu Dhillon Versus Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & others”, 2014 (1) CLT 588, compressor of the newly purchased AC had failed and the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that failure of the compressor of the AC within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defect and principle of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied. The Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has further held that in the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning, it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product and if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again, then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation, which will be highly torturous. In the present case also, the alleged defect in the Air Conditioner in question occurred during the warranty period due to manufacturing defect in it and the opposite parties have failed to rectify its defect or replace the Air Conditioner in question with new one Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the sale price of the Air Conditioner in question i.e. Rs.22,000/- alongwith interest. The opposite parties are also liable to pay
C.C. No.395 of 2014 \\6//
litigation expenses to the complainant.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to refund Rs.22,000/- as sale price of the Air Conditioner in question along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e. 24.3.2014 till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is directed to return the old Air Conditioner in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the refund of the above said amount along with litigation expenses, as ordered above. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by the opposite parties within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
23.1.2015 (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
