DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA.(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.103 of 24.04.2009<br /> Decided on : 06.08.2009<br /> <br /> Hardeep Sharma son of Sh. Ranjit Paul son of Sh.Megh Raj resident of Village Dhade Teh.& Distt.Bathinda.<br /> ..........Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Voltas House 'A' Block,Dr.Babasahed Ambedkar Road,Chinchpokli,Mumbai 100033 throulgh its Manaing Director.<br /> 2.Surindra Radio & Watch Co.Sardar Bazar,Barnala, Tehsil & Distt.Barnala through its owner/Prop.<br /> 3.Bhatia Electronics, near Bus Stand Rampura Phul Tehsil Phul Distt.Bathinda through its owner/Prop.<br /> <br /> ............Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.George,President,<br /> Sh.Amarjeet Paul,Member.<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh.Talib Hussain,Advocate.<br /> For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.Parveen Sharma,Advocate.<br /> For the opposite parties No.2&3: Exparte.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGE,PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. We have taken into consideration the agreement put forwarded by both the side as were as the facts pleaded in the complaint and reply filed by opposite party No.1.<br /> 2. The main contention raised for the complainant as that on the assurance given by opposite party No.2 he purchased, one Air <br /> Conditioner of 1.5 Tone capacity of Voltas against cash payment of Rs.17,800/- vide bill No.16798 dt.8.7.08 Ex.C-3. He also spent an amount of Rs.2000/- as desired by opposite party No.2 for a stabilizer and thus paid a total payment of Rs.19,800/- to opposite party No.2. He <br /> -2-<br /> purchased the Air conditioner for a specific purpose i.e . to provide proper cooling comfort to his aged grand father who was suffering from Asthma and from Lung problems as it was difficult for him to bear the hot weather of the area. The purpose for which Air Conditioner was installed could not be full filled as the same stopped working properly immediately after it was installed, as it was not giving any cooling properly. As per the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, he approached opposite party No.2 an authorized dealer for Voltas and told him the entire problem he was facing and requested opposite party No.2 for the replacement of air conditioner with a new one but opposite party No.2 advised him to approach opposite party No.3, who is also an authorized dealer of opposite party No.1, being nearest to the complainant. He further stated in his affidavit Ex.C-3 that on the asking of opposite party No.2 he approached opposite party No.3, however, opposite party No.3 refused to solve the problem taking one or the other pretext. Thereafter he made efforts to contact with the officials of Voltas Service Station as mentioned in Operation Manual Ex.C-2 and some how he succeed to have a talk with Pune branch and he was advised to Dial Phone No.1800423-455 he did tried this phone but no body picked up/attended. He further stated in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that due to non functioning of the Air Conditioner his grand father, who was suffering from Asthma died on 20th April,2009. He became helpless as the Air Conditioner became only a show piece in his <br /> house and he continued to suffer due to the unwarranted conduct of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. The facts stated by the complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-1 remained uncontroverted and unchallenged on the essential and material issues, because both opposite parties No.2&3 despite service did not appear to contest the allegations, opposite party No.1 appeared to contest the complaint. Opposite party No.1 admitted that Air Conditioner purchased by the complainant is their product, but opposite parties No.2 <br /> -3-<br /> &3 are not authorized dealers of Voltas and neither the opposite parties No.2&3 nor complainant at any point of time i.e. from the date of purchase till the date of filing of the present complaint brought any defect or problem to their notice orally or in writing at the same time opposite party No.1 in the affidavit of Sh.Kulwant Singh Kang, Areas Service Manager, Voltas Limited Ex.R-1 in Para 3 has clearly stated that “we had delivered hale and hearty and all right Air Conditioner in question to opposite party No.2”,accordingly the stand taken up by opposite party No.1 in reply as well as affidavit Ex.R-1 that opposite party No.2 is neither authorized dealer nor service center of opposite party No.1 than under what circumstances the said Air Conditioner of Voltas Limited was supplied by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1appeares to be well aware of all the facts and circumstances if has taken the stand that opposite party No.2 is not the authorized dealer,if is unsustainable under all reasonable probabilities. Moreover the sale invoice Ex.C-3 speaks of the unrebuttable facts on the top of this invoice, it has been specifically mentioned i.e. Authorized dealers L.G.,IFB, Voltas, Panasonic, Tata Sky Hitachi i.e. opposite party <br /> No.2 is not an authorized dealer of opposite party No.1, why he has been allowed to propagate himself as an authorize dealer of Voltas products and why he has been supplied Air Conditioner in question by opposite party No.1. All the objections taken by opposite party No.1 in reply as well as affidavit Ex.R-1 are based on hypothesion and for want of proper knowledge without taking proper inspection. Opposite party No.1 has alleged that Air Conditioner may be having some minor defect and not any manufacturing defect ,therefore, opposite party No.1 is ready to repair the air conditioner to the satisfaction of complainant that perhaps may be to evade any punitive action.<br /> 4.That the allegations pleaded by the complainant remained uncontroverted, that immediately after the purchase of air<br /> -4-<br /> conditioner it did not function properly, it went out of order and despite the fact that he paid handsome amount of Rs.19,800/- in cash to opposite party No.2 who is proved to be an authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 did not care to provide proper service to the complainant to fulfill the purpose for which the complainant purchased the said air conditioner.<br /> 5. The conduct of opposite party No.1 in denying dealership of opposite party No.2 amounts to unfair trade practice because opposite party no.1 is required to publish the list of all the authorized dealers of Voltas to own the responsibility and accountability to its consumers, even the perusal of “Operation Manual”Ex.R-2,shows that no list of authorized dealers has been given. <br /> 6. Opposite party No.3 has been proceeded against exparte, but during the course of arguments Sh.Gaurav Bhatia Proprietor of opposite party No.3 appeared and he stated that before filing of this <br /> complaint he received a telephonic message fro,m opposite party No.2 to depute some mechanic for the repairs of the air conditioner of the complainant. He deputed one person to do the job but he could not remove the defect, rest he is not aware if opposite party No.1 has stated in reply as well as in affidavit Ex.R-1 that opposite party No.3 is not an authorize dealer of service center for Voltas,therefore opposite party No.3 had not actual service provider for the complainant.<br /> 7. Opposite party No.1 and 2 appears to be hand in gloves to admit or deny each other relationship accordingly to the suitability of circumstance favorable to them and thus both are liable to rendering deficient service despite the fact that cash amount of Rs.19,800/- was received as a sale consideration of air conditioner,which failed for any reasons what so ever remained unattended defecting the very purpose for which it was purchased by the complainant.<br /> 8.In the result the complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.1&2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. The opposite parties<br /> -5-<br /> No.1&2 are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.19,800 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. the date of purchase of air conditioner and stabilizer alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment besides Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses jointly as well as severally with in the period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 9. The complainant is directed to return the old air conditioner alongwith stabilizer to opposite party No.2 within the period of 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order against receipt. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs .File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronouced <br /> 6.8.2009. (GEORGE)<br /> PRESIDENT,<br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER,<br /> <br />