Affinitee Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. filed a consumer case on 06 Aug 2024 against Voltas Limited in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/231/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Aug 2024.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/231/2022
Affinitee Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)
Versus
Voltas Limited - Opp.Party(s)
Ishaan Dogra
06 Aug 2024
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,
1. Voltas Limited (through its General Manager) Voltas Limited, Plot No.194-195, First Floor, Industrial Area Phase-2, Chandigarh Pin-160002.
2. Voltas Limited (through its Managing Director) Corporate Head Office Voltas Limited, Voltas House-A, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033.
3. M/s Ambika Enterprises, (through its Proprietor) SCO-42, Sector-11, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.
4. Fire Station Department, (through its Fire Station Officer), Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana. Pin-134109.
(Complaint against OP No.4 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.12.2022).
Opposite Parties
CORAM :
PAWANJIT SINGH
PRESIDENT
SURJEET KAUR
MEMBER
SURESH KUMAR SARDANA
MEMBER
ARGUED BY
:
Sh.Ishaan Dogra, Advocate for Complainant.
:
Sh.Sanjay Judge, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2.
:
OP No.3 ex-parte.
:
Complaint against OP No.4 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.12.2022.
Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member
Averments are that the complainant had purchased Voltas Air Conditioner for sum of Rs.75,300/- from OP No.3 dated 12.06.2020 (Annexure C-1). On 12.06.2020 after the installation, on the same day of purchasing the Air Conditioner, it started leaking & stopped working. The executive analyzed the problem and stated that the ducts connected to Air Conditioner were not properly installed. The complainant then changed the ducting completely and raised a complaint again to get Air Conditioner installed. The executive installed the defective Air Conditioner, but the leakage in the defective Air Conditioner was not solved. On the night of 28.08.2021, a fire started in the same defective Air Conditioner which slowly engulfed the whole floor of the building destroying equipment, office furniture accessories etc. The fire was doused by the Fire Department Panchkula (Annexure C-3). The cost incurred by the complainant after renovation of the premises and for the equipment etc., has been estimated to be Rs.39,16,379/- (Annexure C-4). The complainant contacted the OPs on numerous occasions but to no avail and after seeing such harassment, is of the firm belief that Opposite Parties are not in a position to resolve the issue. The act of OP No.1 to 3 in not repairing/replacing the defective Air Conditioner in question in time as should have been the case, leading to loss of complainant's property in their own terms and condition is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP No.1 to 3 Annexure C-5 (Colly). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that there is no expert evidence adduced on record with regards to the allegation of the alleged defect in the complaint. The products are under warranty and the OP’s have never refused any repairs after sale service to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as the AC’s are being used commercially with works of the complainant thus the complaint deserved to be dismissed on this score itself. It is further alleged that the fire is not account of the air conditioner but on account of local defects at the end of the complainant. There is no report of the fire department appended on the case file. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1 & 2.
Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.3 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.3 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 13.04.2023.
Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
The main grievance of the complainant is that due to the fire in defective AC supplied by the OP No.1 to 3 there was a big loss to various equipments installed in his premises and the OP No.1 to 3 have failed to compensate towards the damage caused due to fire in the defective AC.
On perusal of the various annexures adduced by the complainant to reach the conclusion about exact cause of fire or to ascertain about the extent of loss due to fire, shall require voluminous examination of records and evidence and cross examination of various witnesses of the complainant & official of the fire department. Hence, the allegation made in the complaint is of complex nature which required detailed trial. The proceedings before this consumer Commission are of summary nature.
Having considered the matter from different angles and having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the complainant, we are of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the same is required detailed trial and voluminous evidence in the shape of examination and cross examination of the witnesses and the same is not possible under summary proceedings before this Commission.
With these observations, the consumer complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant shall be free to work out its remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate Civil Court.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
Sd/-
06/08/2024
[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls
President
Sd/-
[Surjeet Kaur]
Member
Sd/-
[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.