CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.367/2010
SH. AJAY RAJPUT
178 M-33/A-3, WARD NO.2,
GARWALI COLONY, MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI-110030
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- THE MANAGER
(MARKETING DEPARTMENT)
M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,
45, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-3,
NEW DELHI-110020
- M/S ANIL RADIO & ELECTRIC PVT. LTD.,
B.O.175, SAROJINI NAGAR MARKET,
NEW DELHI-110023
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:07.10.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased an air conditioner manufactured by OP-1 from OP-2 on 21.8.2009. The said air conditioner did not work properly since the day of installation. Complainant lodged a complaint to the authorised service centre of OP. A technician came for repairing the air conditioner. The technician was not able to rectify the fault even after four visits. Fault/Action details report are stated as under:-
- 03.9.2009 Compressor defective
- 14.9.2009 Compressor changed, but cooling is not satisfactory(zero)
- 08.2.2010 Gas filling charging
- 16.4.2010 Gas leakage
Complainant requested the officials of OP-1 to solve the problem and even three letters were written to Marketing Manager of OP but no reply received from OP.
Complainant has prayed for refund of cost of air conditioner i.e. Rs.16,700/- plus 24% interest p.a. and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses incurred on cartage/installation etc.
OP-1 in the written statement took the plea that the complainant has not disclosed the true fact and has filed the present complaint for extorting the money from OP-1. It is denied that the said air conditioner was giving problem since the day of its purchase. It is sated that complainant had lodged first complaint on 02.9.2009 and the engineer had visited the site and inspected the air conditioner. The compressor of the air conditioner had some problem. The complainant was adamant in getting the compressor replaced without any charges The compressor was replaced and the air conditioner was working properly as per the Job Sheet dated 03.9.2009. It is further stated that again a complaint was received on 08.2.2010. The service engineer visited and found that there was gas leakage and the gas was filled up without any charges and the air conditioner was working properly. Further a complaint was received on 12.4.2010 and the service engineer visited and it was found that air conditioner is working well. Since then there was no complaint regarding the air conditioner. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
OP-2 has not filed WS. Subsequently both the OPs were proceeded ex parte.
We have heard Ld counsel for complainant as well as AR for OP-1. Complainant has placed on record Job Cards. The first Job Card dated 03.9.2009 shows that the compressor was defective. Job card dated 14.9.2009 shows that compressor has been replaced. However the engineer has reported that the problem of cooling still not solved even after changing of compressor. Then job cards dated 08.2.10 and 16.4.2010 show that there was gas leakage.
The air conditioner was purchased on 21.8.2009. In fact it was a defective air conditioner as is evident from Job Cards. The compressor was found to be defective. The same was changed but even then the cooling was not found to be satisfactory. Again there was a gas leakage. The gas was filled. Again there was gas leakage. Complainant has written these letters dated 23.4.10, 30.4.10 and 28.5.10 asking the OP-1 to cure the defect of the air conditioner but these were not responded.
In fact ordersheet dated 04.6.14 shows that one Sh. Dhiraj, Senior Law Officer on behalf of OP-1 was present and he submitted that air conditioner has been inspected but the complainant does not wish to get it repaired or settle the matter by accepting the cost of the product which the OP companies are ready to pay.
It is proved form the testimony of the complainant as well as documents on the record that in fact the air conditioner which was given to the complainant was defective and same did not function properly even after change of compressor. Despite writing several letters to the OP-1, OP-1 did not bother to look into the problem of the complainant. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Retail invoice shows that the price of the air conditioner was Rs.14,700/- and price of the stabilizer was Rs.2,000/-.
OP-1 is directed to refund of Rs.14700/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. from 25.6.2010 plus Rs.5,000/- for compensation and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses. On receipt of amount, complainant to return the air conditioner to the OP-1.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
