Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/335/2014

Dr.P.Sriram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G.Munendran

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                      Date of Complaint Filed :31.07.2014

                                                      Date of Reservation      :21.07.2022

                                                      Date of Order               :03.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                          : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,          :  MEMBER  I 

                     THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,  : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 335/2014

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Dr. P. Sriram,

S/o of Mr. C. Periasami,

No.14/1, Jayammal Street,

Shenoy Nagar,

Chennai - 600 030.                                                        ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

   Voltas Limited,

   Unitary Products Business Group,

   No.624, Anna Salai,

   Teynampet,

   Chennai-600 018.

 

2.The Proprietor,

   Jayam& Co.,

   No. AA147, 3^rd Avenue, Main Road,

   Anna Nagar,

   Chennai - 600 040.                                              ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant              : M/s. G.Munendran

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party      : M/s. M/s. Lavanya Shankar

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party     :Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainants and the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party, we delivered the following

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund the amount of Rs.37,000/- paid towards cost of Voltas Air Conditioner Guardian Stabiliser and cost of installation charges with 18% interest p.a and to pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs towards the mental agony, severe hardship and deficiency in service caused to the Complainant along with cost of this legal proceedings.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant visited the shop of 2^nd Opposite Party in order to purchase a good quality 1.5 Ton capacity Air conditioner on 05.03.2014. The 2^nd Opposite Party, for the best reasons known to him learnt to have said that the Voltas A/C is the best one and assured that it is backed up with better after sales service, when compared with other companies' A/Cs. Believing the 2^nd  Opposite Party in good faith, the Complainant's family had purchased one Voltas A/C 1.5 Ton capacity and as insisted by the Second Opposite Party also purchased one Guardian Voltage Stabiliser of 4 KV capacity after paying the bill amount of Rs.35000/- by cash with a further sum of Rs.2000/- having been paid to the First Opposite Party on the date of installation. The 2^nd Opposite Party to arrange for the installation of A/C immediately, as a new born baby of the Complainant is expected to be at home and also in view of the sweltering heat experienced in the city coupled with intermittent power cuts. On 06.03.2014, the technicians from the First Opposite Party, installed the new Voltas Air conditioner brought from the 2^nd Opposite Party to his residence. As per the technicians instructions, the installed Voltas A/C was run for one hour and the cooling was satisfactory. To his utter shock and dismay he found that the New Voltas A/C when switched on 07.03.2014, failed to give cool air as expected of an Air conditioner, but was only giving dry and hot air. The Complainant contacted the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties several times since 07.03.2014 seek a replacement but in vain. The 2^nd Opposite Party grossly ignored the plea of the Complainant to replace the air conditioner and asked the Complainant to contact the First Opposite Party thereby shifting the entire responsibilities on the shoulders of the First Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party chose to send the technicians to rectify the defect only after prolonged contacts by the Complainant. By this time the new born baby and mother arrived home and have to undergo severe hardship and sleepless nights. The 1^st  Opposite Party within a span of 30 days from the date of purchase of the devilish A/C, the cause of the defect of non cooling could not be rectified and during such visits, the cooling could be felt only for few minutes and thereafter only the dry and hot air was felt. As the technicians felt that the Air conditioner has to be taken to the service centre for necessary repairs and thereafter for observation, they were allowed to take the A/C to their service centre.  The A/C was re-installed at his residence on 08.04.2014 and again the A/C continued to play havoc and shattered all the hopes of proper functioning. The mal functioning of the A/C adversely affected the neo-natal infant and its mother from discharging their normal and routine functions. He approached the Second Opposite Party personally on 12.04.2014 and requested to take back the defective A/.C and give another new one and even agreed to pay any difference in the bill amount. The 2^nd Opposite Party was unrelenting and as usual directed him to contact the First Opposite Party.  The 1^st  Opposite Party, whenever approached did not come forward with a proper solution to the Complainant's grievances. One Mr. James claiming to be representing the 1^st Opposite Party, who visited his residence on 14.4.2014, requested for one more chance to take back the A/C to the Service Centre again, when he insisted on refund of the total amount paid towards the Air conditioner and stabilizer to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the said Mr. James in the last week of April 2014, promised to take back the A/C and ensure the refund of the amount by a post dated cheque. He waited patiently for nearly 1 ½ months helplessly and the unbearable sight of suffering of the infant and its mother, he was forced to buy another Air conditioner from a different shop keeping the well being of the mother and child in mind who suffered immensely for last one and half month solely due to mal functioning of the A/C of the 1^stOpposite Party purchased from the 2^nd Opposite Party at his instance. The amount of agony and severe hardship solely undergone by the entire family of the Complainant from the day two of ill manufactured voltas Air conditioner's purchase were a due to the defective Air conditioner supplied by the Second Opposite Party and which was manufactured and Serviced by the First Opposite Party, is immeasurable. The acts of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties amount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of both the Opposite parties. On 07.06.2014 legal notices sent to both the Opposite parties duly acknowledged by the Opposite parties, and thereafter a letter dated 17.06.2014 was received from the First Opposite Party, containing evasive replies. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^stOpposite Party in brief is as follows:-

     The Complainant had purchased the Spilt Air-Conditioner on 05.03.2014  at M/s.Jayam & Co, Anna Nagar, Chennai -49 and got it installed on 06.03.2014 by their authorized service centre. After the installation got over, Complainant has called upon 07.03.2014 for attending the complaint and made it working OK during that visit itself, for which commissioning was not done completely on the previous date. During April 2014 the Complainant called service since he has faced less cooling issues in his unit, technicians visited the site and informed that it needs to checked in his workshop premises and also taken the unit to their premises after the permission of the Complainant only and re-installed after necessary testing due to dis-satisfaction of the product, Complainant and family decided to give back the unit to the 2^nd Opposite Party and arguing for cash back. The 2^nd Opposite Party has directed the Complainant to his Authorized service centre-"THE COOL CHENNAI” located at Ayanavaram, there in turn they have asked for replacement or refund. Its Authorized service centre who is no where a deciding authority was pressurized for this & hence they were unable to provide any commercial solutions. Later the 1^st Opposite Party representing VOLTAS LED was roofed all such happenings through a legal notice served by the Complainant for refund or cash back, after which they have directed their own employee and authorized service centre to do necessary settlement.  Their persons were approached Complainant to get the things settled many times through arranging and giving replacement of a new unit or giving PDC or issuing cash etc. But Complainant was not in the intention to settle case & deputed 3^rd persons in to this whoever no way related to this case. The Opposite Party sent letters to the customer and made several phone calls to the Complainant & their family members. Nobody responded and the 3^rd party persons have filed the case in the DCDRC intentionally for getting compensation. Even they have met the father of the Complainant during 20-11-2004 and discussed about the settlements, for which they have shown their interest level towards settlements. They are in the intention to settle this case in a positive manner, requesting honourable president to intervene in this situation for making this to settle once for all without any compensation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.    The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were marked. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.B-1 alone was marked.

5.  The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on them and was called absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased one Voltas A/C 1.5 Ton capacity with Guardian 4 KV Capacity Stabilizer from the 2^nd Opposite Party on 05.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.35,000/-. And the same was installed on 06.03.2014 by the 1^st Opposite Party and a payment of Rs.2000/- made by the Complainant towards installation charges.

It is in dispute that when the Complainant turned on the Air Conditioner the very next day of installation i.e., on 07.03.2014 failed to give cool air instead gave dry and hot air and the same could not be rectified by the Opposite Parties. 

The Contention of the Complainant is that the Second Opposite Party, being the dealer from whom the said Air Conditioner was purchased, had grossly ignored his plea of replacing the air conditioner and asked to contact the First Opposite Party, being the manufacturer. The 1^st Opposite Party sent their technicians to rectify the defect only after prolonged contacts. His newly born baby and mother arrived home and have to undergo severe hardship and sleepless nights. The 1^stOpposite Party could not rectify the cause of the defect of non-cooling, in spite of the 1st Opposite Party technicians took the product for necessary repairs and thereafter for observation, to their service centre.  The A/C was re-installed on 08.04.2014 and again the A/C continued to play havoc and shattered all the hopes of proper functioning,even then the cooling could be felt only for few minutes and thereafter only the dry and hot air was felt. The mal functioning of the A/C adversely affected the neo-natal infant and its mother from discharging their normal and routine functions. The mal functioning of the A/C right from the next day of its date of purchase. He approached the 2^nd Opposite Party personally on 12.04.2014 and requested to take back the defective A/C and give a new one and even agreed to pay any difference in the bill amount, again the 2^nd Opposite Party directed him to contact the 1^stOpposite Party.  The 1^st Opposite Party, whenever approached did not come forward with a proper solution to his grievances. In spite of the assurance given by the 1^st Opposite Party’s representative in the last week of April 2014, to take back the A/C and to refund of the amount by a post dated cheque, but no response. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties were contacted several times since 07.03.2014 for replacement or refund, but no response. Because of the mal functioning of the AC his infant child and wife had to suffer a lot and he has to suffer a serious mental agony of the deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties.

The Contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that they have attended the complaints of the Complainant, through their authorized service agents and have directed to approach their other Aurthorised Service Agent, where the Complainant had demanded for replacement or refund, as the Service Agents is not the deciding authority, their representatives were engaged for settlement process, but the Complainant was very adamant in getting replacement or refund, when they are ready and willing to pay the cost price of the product but the Complainant was expecting over and above and hence the issue could not be resolved.

On careful reading of the Complaint and Exhibits marked in support of the Complaint as well as the Written version, it is an admitted fact the cooling issues arose in the AC purchased by the Complainant of the 1^st Opposite Party through 2^nd Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-1 and there is no concrete evidence to show and prove that the 1^st Opposite Party had  rectified the said issue of the Complainant. Though the 1^st Opposite Party was/is willing to pay the cost price of the product they had not valued the sufferance of the Complainant and the purpose of the product purchased and further the 2^nd Opposite Party who had sold the product had not taken any initiative to resolve the issues of the Complainant, except directing the Complainant to approach the 1^st Opposite Party, in spite of selling a defective product to the Complainant. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party had acted negligently in resolving the issue in the product of the Complainant, in spite of knowing the purpose of purchase though not at the stage of purchase but during the course of service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service and thereby had caused serious mental agony to the Complainant.

Point Nos. 2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards cost of the product of the 1^st Opposite Party purchased by the Complainant, through the 2^nd Opposite Party, as it is admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party to pay the cost price of the product but had denied to pay towards any compensation, as the purpose of the purchase of the product by the Complainant was not met out due to defective product of the 1^st Opposite Party sold to him by the 2^nd Opposite Party, hence the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the cost price of the product and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- towards costs, to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) towards cost of Voltas Air Condition 1.5 Ton, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., from 31.07.2014 till the date of this order, and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above said amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 3^rd of August 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	05.03.2014	Copy of Purchase Bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A2	06.03.2014	Copy of Service report of the 1st Opposite Party for installation of A/C
Ex.A3	16.05.2014	Copy of E-mail sent to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A4	-	Copy of Proof of delivery of hard copies of email dated 16.05.2014
Ex.A5	07.06.2014	Copy of Legal notice sent to Both the Opposite Parties
Ex.A6	13.06.2014	Copy of Acknowledgement cards received from Opposite Parties
Ex.A7	17.06.2014	Copy of Letter from the 1st Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

-

Copy of Warranty Booklet

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 2^nd Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT