BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No:1429 of 2009

Date of Institution:   09.11.2009

Date  of  Decision :  08.07.2010

Joginder Singh Duhan son of late Sh.Inder Singh Duhan, resident of House No.1063, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          Voltas Limited, SCO No.201-203, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2]       Aman Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, Shop No.34, Opp. Dev Samaj College, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3]       Paras Enterprises, SCO No.370, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     None for the complainant.

Sh.Sanjay Judge, Adv. for OP No.1.

OPs No.2 & 3 already exparte.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

                    Concisely put, the Complainant purchased two Window Air Conditioners of make Voltas from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.3, of 1.5 ton each for an amount of Rs.18,844.44Ps each totaling Rs.37,668.88Ps. vide bill No.514, dated 1.5.2008 (Ann.C-1) with a warranty and call free service of two years.  On installation of the ACs by OPNo.3, the moving strips of one of the AC were damaged.  However, the OPs assured that they will replace it within a day or two.   While the second AC installed by OPs was not giving any cooling.  It was also reported to OPs, who sent their technician on 15.7.2008 i.e. two months after the installation of ACs and noticed (Ann.C-2) that there was a gas leakage in it as a result of which the same was not giving the cooling.  Then another technician of OP came and repaired the AC, which was having gas leakage. However, after some days, it again stopped working because of gas leakage whereas in other AC the damaged moving strip was not replaced by the OPs.  The OPs were requested a number of times to remove the defects of both the A.Cs. but they did not pay any heed.  It was only on 30.6.2009 i.e. in the mid of next summer season that a serviceman of OPs came to the premises of complainant for servicing of one AC.  The second AC was not even serviced.  It is stated that the AC was not serviced upto June, 2009.  It is also stated that the damaged moving strip of one of the ACs has not been replaced nor the second AC has been put in proper working condition even after a lapse of more than one year time.  Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice to OPs on 30.8.2009 which was duly served to OPs but to not result.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above acts of OPs as gross deficiency in service and praying for directing the OPs to replace both the ACs with good pieces and pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs along with interest @18% p.a. along with cost of litigation.

2]                 OP No.1 filed reply and admitted the sale of the ACs. It is denied that the ACs were suffering from any defect as alleged.  It is submitted that both the ACs are working properly.  It is asserted that the complainant never reported about the damage of moving strip of one of the AC and Had that been reported, it would have been replaced promptly.  It is also asserted that there would not have been any defect with regards to gas leakage at such an early stage until and unless the AC has been mishandled.  However, leakage of gas is not a very major defect and as per the job cards at Ann.-A & B, no defect has been mentioned therein and it bears the signature of the complainant under the column “satisfactory”.  In the end, it is stated that the both the ACs are working perfectly and this complaint has been filed just to seek pecuniary gains since the warranty had already expired on 30.4.2009.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with costs.

3]                 OPs No.2 & 3 did not turn up despite having been duly served with the notice.  Therefore, they were proceeded exparte on 17.12.2009.

4]                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]                 We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record & evidence thoroughly.

6]                 The basic facts of the case in respect of the complainant having purchased two window air conditioners o Voltas make from OP No.3, manufactured by OP No.1, with capacity of 1.5 ton each costing Rs.18,844.44Ps each i.e. for a total of Rs.37,668,88Ps. on 1.5.2008, have all been admitted.

7]                 The allegations of the complainant against the Ops are two fold. One is that the moving strip one of the ACs was found damaged at the time of installation and the second is that in the other AC, there was no cooling.  In support of his case, the complainant has enclosed the Retail Invoice issued by the OP No.3 at the time of purchase of two ACs and also three Service Report Cards (Ann.C-2 to C-5) in which the complaint of gas leakage has been shown as on 15.7.2008.  This complaint was duly attended to by Op no.1 and the complainant has signed on the service report card showing his entire satisfaction for the job done.  In the second service report card, dated 19.7.2008 wherein some minor repairs were done by the OP, the complainant has again signed the said card showing his satisfaction without recording any  objection or protest in the said card.  The only argument, which he made in the service report card was that he shall await the working of the ACs.  There is another service report card dated 30.6.2009 which does not show any complaint by the complainant in respect of the working of the two ACs.  It relates to only normal servicing of the ACs .  Beyond these four documents, the complainant has not enclosed any evidence in support of his case.

8]                 The allegations of the complainant have been denied and rebutted by the OP No.1 as OPs No.2 & 3 were exparte.  In its reply, OP No.1 says that both the ACs were working properly and the damage to the moving strip of one AC and lack of cooling in the second AC had never been reported to it and therefore, the allegations made by the complainant were incorrect.  This OP further says that had the complainant reported the damage to the moving strip, the same could have been replaced then and there.  So far as the complaint regarding gas leakage of one of the ACs is concerned, as per the OP, the leakage of gas at an early stage is caused only if the AC is mishandled but in any case the OP attended to this complaint also and the gas in one of the ACs was refilled so as to make the same fully working.  In support of its case, the OP No.1 has also enclosed the Service Report Card, dated 19.7.2008 and 30.6.2008 showing that whenever the complainant made any complaint, the same was attended to by it.  There is another service report card dated 3.6.2010 in which the OP had not only carried out the wet service of the ACs but also replaced one grill and the complainant has signed his satisfaction note on the service report card again making a note that working was yet to been seen.  This note has been appended after a period of more than 2 years of the purchase of ACs.

9]                 It is also observed while going through the pleadings of the complainant made in his complaint that the complainant not only wants the OPs to replace both the ACs but also asked for a compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs along with interest @18% per annum.  The contention of the OP is that the complainant is just not interested in getting the ACs repaired for defect, if any, but only to make some undue pecuniary gains arising out of this complaint.  Further, the complainant has not attached any expert report from any qualified Refrigeration Engineer to show & prove any inherent manufacturing defect in the two AC machines.

10]               From the paper-book on record, it is quite clear that there has been no major defect in any of the ACs and whatever minor defects were there, these were removed by the OPs to the entire satisfaction of the complainant from time to time.  The complainant has not been able to establish and prove his case in respect of the two ACs having any manufacturing defect or that he had suffered any financial loss on account of the alleged defects in the ACs.  It is also observed that on the day of final arguments, neither the complainant nor his authorized agent or his counsel appeared to argue the case.  On the other hand, the case was argued by the ld.Counsel for OP No.1 in the absence of complainant/authorized agent.

11]               From the above detailed analysis of the entire case, in our considered opinion, the complainant has not been able to conclusively establish and prove his case in respect of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  As such, the present complaint has no merit, weight or substance.  Therefore, we do not find any substance or cogent evidence for deciding the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the Ops.  On the basis of all these points, we dismiss the present complaint.  However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs. 

12]               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

8^th July, 2010                                                                      Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                   (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                               Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA]

MEMBER

“Om”