Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/228/2018

Kanwar Deepinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas Corporate, Voltas Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/228/2018
Date of Institution	:	21/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	10/04/2019

 

 

Kanwar Deepinder Singh s/o Sh. Kanwar Jagbir Singh, resident of House No.2058, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Voltas Corporate, Voltas Limited, Voltas House, A Block, Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar Road, Chinhpokli, Mumbai-400033 through its Managing Director.

2.     Voltas Enterprises, SCO No.370, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Naginder Singh Vashist, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rajinder Pandey, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations as set out in the consumer complaint are on 8.11.2016, complainant had purchased two ACs – one window AC of 1.5 ton and another split AC of 2.0 ton – from the authorised dealer/OP-2 on payment of Rs.67,500/- including 12.5% VAT for both the ACs.  OP-1 is the manufacturer of the ACs. 

                It is the case, the ACs were purchased in the month of November 2016 i.e. during the onset of winter season and were not installed as at the house of complainant renovation work was going on.  In the month of January 2017, the said ACs were installed at the respective place by the engineers of OPs. Since the winter season was on, therefore, the split AC which was installed in the drawing room was not put to work. Unfortunately in the month of May 2017, father of the complainant met with an accident, so the relatives and family members came to the house and they switched on the split AC, but, the same did not work.  On complaint being made, engineer of OP-2 inspected the AC and found some problem in the indoor unit of the split AC. The second AC i.e. window AC worked properly.  It is further the case, a number of times complaints were made on the phone number supplied by OP-2.  It is also the case, on 11.7.2017, engineer of OP-1 visited the house of the complainant and apprised there was fault in the AC which needs to be replaced with a new one. However, it was not replaced. Telephonic complaints were lodged 10 times in the month of July/August, 2017 and when all these efforts failed, a legal notice was issued on 6.11.2017 which was neither replied nor acted upon. Hence the present consumer complaint praying for refund of Rs.39,501/-i.e. the cost of the split AC, including VAT, alongwith compensation for mental & physical harassment and cost of litigation.

2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being false and its warranty had already run out as the complaint was instituted on 9.5.2018 i.e. beyond the period of one year.  The factum of purchase of AC in question is not disputed from its dealer/OP-2.  Other allegations that the AC had a defect were also denied.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 did not contest the consumer complaint despite having been served by way of declared service and allowed itself to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.7.2018.
4.         Rejoinder to the written reply of OP-1 was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.          Per pleadings of the parties, the invoice (Annexure C-1) is not a disputed document inter se parties. Per pleadings, admittedly OP-1 is the manufacturer of the AC in question and OP-2 is the dealer/trader who had sold it against consideration of Rs.39,501/- after break-up of the amount mentioned in the invoice (Annexure C-1).  Now the limited question which remains for determination is whether there is any defect in the AC which was not corrected during the warranty period by the OPs?
8.         The sole ground for opposition is the consumer complaint was filed on 21.5.2018 while the date of purchase of the AC is 8.11.2016, as such, the prescribed warranty period of one year had already expired and the OPs are not under any obligation to repair or replace it. 
9.         Per pleadings of the parties, there appears to be a just claim put forth by the complainant as he had purchased two ACs and his bonafides can be adjudged from the fact that he candidly admittedly that the window AC purchased from OP-2 is working well and there is no problem in it. The complainant complained of a problem in the split AC.  It is a fact that the AC in hand was purchased during the onset of winter season in November, 2016, therefore during this month or say till February there is hardly any necessity of the AC being put to use. These facts appear to be believable. 
10.         The case of the complainant is, when the AC was put to use in May 2017, it did not switch on, therefore, the engineers of AC were called who had claimed that its PCB had fault and needed to be replaced.  However, this was not replaced by the OPs in spite of the fact that it developed a defect during the warranty period and the complaint was lodged on 11.7.2017.  Not only this, under paragraph No.9, there are averments that on 13.7.2017, 14.7.2017, 17.7.2017, 18.7.2017, 22.7.2017, 24.7.2017, 26.7.2017 29.07.2017, 7.8.2017 and 21.8.2017, telephonic complaints were lodged with the OPs on their telephone number. To this effect, copies of the call details (Annexure C-2) placed on record. 
11.         Contesting OP-1 in reply to the contents of paragraph no.9 of the consumer complaint submitted an evasive reply that the call details have not been provided.  Assuming that the call details were not provided, then Annexure C-2 could have been inspected.  This shows, it is an evasive denial and OP-1 has not attacked the genuineness of the calls made as many as 10 times in the month of July/August, 2017 by the complainant to the OPs and which fact is supported from Annexure C-2.  From this record, we have no hesitation to hold that even during the warranty period, when the matter was brought to the notice of the OPs, they did not bother to get the defective part replaced.  Neither the defective part was replaced during the warranty period nor was the AC replaced with a new one or its face value refunded by the OPs.  Thus, OPs had certainly escaped from their duty which tantamounts to deficiency in service.
12.         Another fact which supports the case of the complainant is, the AC was purchased from OP-2 to whom the amount was paid and the said trader has not opted to contest the consume complaint and no reply was filed meaning thereby, it has nothing to say qua the allegations made in the consumer complaint.  In spite of the defect, neither the part was replaced during the warranty period nor the defective piece was put in order, therefore, we have no option except to allow this consumer complaint. 
13.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.39,501/-to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 8.11.2016 till realization. The complainant shall, however, return the defective AC to the OPs.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
10/04/2019	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President