BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:125 of 2014. Date of Instt.: 24.07.2014.
Date of Order: 16.02.2015.
Vishal aged 28 years son of Sh. Ghansham Dass, resident of House No. 159 Model Town Bhattu, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
..Complainant.
Versus
1.Vishal T.V. Care, Near S.B.I., Anaj Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.
2.Voltas Ltd. (Head Office) 2nd Floor Voltas House B-Block, Near Jai Hind Cinema Chinchpokli, T.B. Kadam Marg Cotton Green, Mumbai 400033.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: Smt.Pushpa Mehta, Presiding Member.
Sh. Ranbir Singh Panghal, Member.
Argued by: Sh. Naresh Sachdeva, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Dushyant Gera, Advocate for OP no. 2.
OP no. 1 already expate.
ORDER:
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that he had purchased the Voltas Air Conditioner from the OP no. 1 who is the authorized dealer of Voltas Ltd. i.e. OP no. 2. The complainant paid Rs. 30,500/- to the OP no. 1 for the Voltas air conditioner its product No. is SPLIT AC 1.5 T Silver 3S. OP no. 1 installed the Voltas air conditioner in the premises of the complainant through its mechanic. It has been further averred that from the very beginning of purchasing, the above air conditioner did not work properly and also did not give cooling for which complainant was asked various times to change or repair properly more particularly complaint no. 13my 1705027 dated 17.05.2013, 13ju2202377 dated 22.07.2013 13pr104509 dated 16.08.2013, 3au1402533 dated 14.08.2013, 14041404098 dated 15.04.2014, 140611014678 dated 11.06.2014 and 14071106108 dated 11.07.2014 although sometimes mechanic of OP visited the premises of complainant but working of the air conditioner did not remain satisfactory for long. Complainant asked the OP no. 1 too many times that if there is any manufacturing defect in the above air conditioner, then the air conditioner has to be changed, but the OP no. 1 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and refused to replace the air conditioner. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has not only suffered mental agony and harassment but also suffered financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and document Ex.C1 & Ex.C2.
2. On notice the OP no.1 did not appear before this Forum and therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.10.2014. However, OP No. 2 contested the complaint of the complainant by filing its reply wherein it has taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi concealments of material facts and maintainability etc. It is further submitted that the first complaint of the complainant dated 17.05.2013 was attended by the OP no. 2 to the satisfaction of the complainant. The second complaint dated 22.6.2013 was attended by the OP no. 2 and the gas charging was done and third complaint of the complainant dated 14.8.2013 was attended to by the OP no. 2 and the air conditioner of the complainant was found in working order and the fourth complaint of the complainant dated 15.4.2014 was attended to by the OP no. 2 and gas charging was done but the complainant refused to make the payment of the same. On dated 11.6.2014 the complainant was attended to by the OP no. 2 and the service of the air conditioner of the complainant was done and no defect in the air conditioner of the complainant was found and on dated 11.7.2014 complaint was made by the complainant after the expiry of the warranty period and the same was also attended to by the OP no. 2 and the air conditioner of the complainant was found working in order. Again the complainant made the complaint on 6.8.2014 after expiry of the warranty period and the service of the air conditioner of the complainant was done on 13.8.2014 and when the OP no. 2 demanded the services charges then the complainant instead of making the payment threatened to file the complaint. The OP No.2 has controverted the other allegations made in the complaint and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on his part. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OP no. 2 has tendered affidavits and documents Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and Ex.R1.
3. Heard. Case file perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It is established on file that first complainant was made on 17.5.2013 with regard to the air conditioner purchased on 11.4.2013 and within a period of four months i.e. upto August 2013 four complaints were made, subsequently in the year of 2014 i.e. next season of summer three complaints were made within three months from 15.4.2014 to 11.7.2014, all these complaints are sufficient to prove that the article sold to complainant was not of standard quality, had it been of standard quality so many complaints would not have risen, for which two have to provide wet service and gas charging etc. Moreover OP being a renowned company was in position to rule out way of expert opinion that the article is not having any manufacturing defect as it is having expert engineers but it has not done so. A series of complaints made by the complainant that the air conditioner sold to the complainant by the OP was having manufacturing defect. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide protection to consumers from getting cheated or harassed by suppliers and it is the duty of the Forum to provide a simpler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. From Annexure R1 it is established on the case file that the complainant had undergone hardship due the act and conduct of the OPs. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the above mentioned Air Conditioner keeping in view the brand name of Voltas but from the act and conduct, uncooperative attitude of the OPs the complainant has to suffer a lot because the unit in question went out of order within short span of its purchase i.e. on 11.04.2013. Learned counsel for the complainant has rightly argued that it is not easy for the complainant to approach time and again at service care centre for the removal of the defects in the air conditioner. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly reveals that how negligent they are in doing the needful to the air conditioner in question forcing the complainant to approach this Forum. This forum feel concerned that these days in fast life style of society, air conditioner has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of air conditioners the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different models of advertisements but at the same time after selling the air conditioner oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problems even after paying the full cost of air conditioner. Beneficiary companies available huge amount in the shape of profit are duty bound to provide proper services till the last satisfaction of the customer. In the present case, both the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. In totality, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs as defined in Sections 2 (f) and 2 (g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which are reproduced as under:
(f) “defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or 1[ under any contract, express or implied or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
4. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the cost of the air conditioner to the complainant on returning of air conditioner with accessories and they are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. Compliance of this order be made within one month failing which it will carry interest @ 9 % per annum till its realisation. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM
Dt.16.02.2015
(R.S.Panghal) (Pushpa Mehta)
Member Presiding Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad
Present : Sh. Naresh Sachdeva, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Dushyant Gera, Advocate for OP no. 2.
OP no. 1 already expate.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even dated, the complaint is hereby allowed File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court:
Dated: 16.02.2015
Member Presiding Member, DCDRF, Fatehabad/
