Punjab

Sangrur

CC/413/2016

Chetan Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Jaspinder Singh

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                             

                                                Complaint No.  413

                                                Instituted on:    01.06.2016

                                                Decided on:       07.11.2016

 

Chetan Chauhan aged about 31 years son of Shri Ranvir Singh Chauhan, resident of #51, Captain Karam Singh Nagar, Sunam Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Voltas Limited, Voltas House, ‘A’, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033 through its Manager.

2.             Voltas Limited, SCO No.201-203, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh Regional Authorised Service Centre of Voltas through its Authorised Signatory.

3.             Bharat Light House, Prem Basti, Gali No.6, Sangrur authorized dealer of Voltas;

4.             M/s. Goyal Radios, Chhotta Chowk, Sangrur, Service Centre, Voltas India, through its Authorised Signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant          :               Shri Japinder Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1,2&4              :               Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.3                     :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Chetan Chauhan, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one 1.5 ton air conditioner of Voltas company for Rs.25,700/- from the OP number 3 vide bill number 799 dated 17.5.2015, which was having a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase and five years warranty for the compressor of the air conditioner.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant requested the Ops for service of the air conditioner in question, as such the Op number 1 deputed OP number 4 for the service of the AC and as such the mechanic of the OP completed the service on 23.4.2016. But, after service it did not work and after thorough inspection, the said mechanic informed the complainant that the motor of the said AC has become non functional as water seeped into the motor of the AC.  The complainant requested the Ops to install the new motor of the air conditioner, but all in vain.  It is further averred that the complainant sent an email on 23.5.2016 to the Op number 1 and informed that after so many follow up and reminder nothing has been done. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the defective motor of the AC with a new one or to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the air conditioner along with interest @ 18% per annum and further  claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1,2 and 4, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the AC in question from the OP number 3 vide bill number 799 dated 17.5.2015. However, it has been denied that the motor of the AC has become non functional during the service of the said AC. It is stated that the manufacturing date of the motor is July, 2014, therefore, the bill was demanded from the complainant. On one occasion, the complainant produced bill number 799 dated 17.5.2015 and on the another occasion produced bill number 793 dated 17.5.2016, as such the matter become doubtful and the bills might be fake.  It is stated further that on the request of the complainant, Mr. Lalit Satija, Engineer/mechanic of the Ops visited the house of the complainant and found that the motor was not functioning.  However, it is stated that no amount was ever demanded from the complainant for the repair of the Motor in question. Further, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has got no cause of action and that the present complaint is not maintainable are taken up.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed material facts and that the complaint is false one which should be dismissed. However, on merits, the purchase of the AC in question is admitted vide bill number 799 dated 17.5.2015, but it is stated that the sale of the AC was wrongly written as 17.5.2016 on bill. It is stated further that the Op made changes in the bill number 793 and again wrote the date on the bill as 17.5.2015 and satisfied the complainant.  The complainant kept the copies of all the bills with him at that time.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is stated that the alleged warranty is given by the manufacturer of the company and not by OP number 3.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of warranty, Ex.C-3 copy of bill number 793 dated 17.5.2016, Ex.C-4 copy of bill number 793 dated 17.5.2016, Ex.C-6 copy of bill number 799 dated 17.5.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1,2, &4 has produced Ex.OP1,2&4/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit, Ex.OP3/2  to Ex.OP3/4 copies of bills and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased one air conditioner of Voltas as detailed above from the OP number 3 for Rs.25,700/- vide bill dated 17.5.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  In the present case, the complainant has produced on record the copies of three bills i.e. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 which are dated 17.5.2016, 17.5.2016 and 17.5.2015, respectively. But, the case of the Op number 3 is that it sold the AC in question to the complainant vide bill dated 17.5.2015. 

 

7.               In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the motor of the air conditioner supplied to the complainant became defective at the time of service on 23.4.2016, which fact is further supported by the affidavit of the complainant, though the same has been denied by the OPs.  Since it is an admitted case of the parties that the air conditioner in question was having a warranty of 12 months from the date of its purchase and five years compressor warranty.  The fact remains that the air condition in question was purchased on 17.5.2015 and its motor became defective on 23.4.2016 within 12 months of its purchase, as such, we feel that the Ops are duty bound to set right the defective air conditioner in question free of cost. Since the air conditioner in question was under warranty when it became defective, but the same was not set right by the Ops, we feel that it is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Further, there is no explanation from the side of the OPs, why they did not repair the air conditioner to the satisfaction of the complainant and why the Ops did not make it fully functional.  As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to replace the motor of the air conditioner in question with a new one and make it in fully functional without charging anything from the complainant.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the motor of the air conditioner in question with a new one and make it fully functional without charging anything from the complainant. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension,  harassment and on account of litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 7, 2016.

 

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

     

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member