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

=============

Mita Sharma, w/o Sh. Vijay Sharma, R/o #221, Village Sarangpur, Chandigarh.

                   --- Complainant

V E R S U S

1]      Voltas Limited, through Vijay Sharma, Manager, SCO No. 201-202-203, 2^nd floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2]      Vijay Sharma, Manager, Voltas Limited, SCO No. 201-202-203, 2^nd floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

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

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Arun Kumar, Counsel for Complainant

Sh. Sanjay Judge, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant purchased one Split 3 star Voltas Air Conditioner 1.5 T Vertis Plus (G) from Opposite Party No.3, vide Invoice dated 18.03.2011. The unit was installed at the premises of the Complainant on 29.03.2011. It is alleged that gas of the compressor was leaked on the 3^rd day of installation of the Air Conditioner, but no document was given by the Opposite Party No.3 to with regard to filling the gas. On 06.05.2011, again, the gas leaked, and on receipt of complaint, Opposite Party No.3 deputed one Mr. Raj, who advised the Complainant to lodge complaint, directly, with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. As per the advice, complaint was lodged with the Service Centre of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 12.05.2011, upon which their Engineer/Mechanic visited the premises of the Complainant, and after inspecting the Air Conditioner, told that the compressor unit is faulty; and the same needs to be replaced and advised the Complainant to contact the Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, the Complainant, along with her husband, approached the Opposite Party No.3, and brought the difficulties faced by them, since the purchase of the unit to its knowledge. However, the Opposite Party No.3 showed his inability, and advised the Complainant to lodge complaint with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. As such, complaint lodged complaint with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 12.07.2011, but no one turned up to replace the Compressor. Thereafter, the Complainant made repeated requests to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, but of no use. The Complainant having left with no other alternative sent a letter dated 19.06.2012 to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for placing the faulty Air Conditioner. After receiving the said letter, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 sent their Engineer on 03.07.2012, who gave the noting on the installation/service report that “1.5 TR Split AC Compressor terminal leakage and compressor to be changed”. Thereafter, on 05.07.2012, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 again sent their Engineer and he changed the compressor and filled the gas and gave the remarks on installation/service report that “1.5 TR Split AC Compressor changed and gas changed running of condition OK”. It is alleged that even after changing the Compressor, the Air Conditioner was not working properly, upon which the Complainant again wrote a letter dated 11.07.2012 to Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to replace the faulty Air Conditioner. On receipt of the said letter, Opposite Party No.3, sent reply on 13.07.2012, intimating that the Air Conditioner was out of warranty period and they cannot do anything. It is also alleged that pursuant to the repeated requests of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 sent their Service Engineer on 15.07.2012, 25.07.2012, 06.08.2012 and 08.08.2012 but they failed to rectify the faulty Air Conditioner. Eventually, on 06.08.2012, the Service Engineer took the whole inner and outer unit for repair purposes with them and thereafter, on 08.08.2012, they came along with some second hand unit, instead of the actual unit of the Complainant, but the Complainant refused to accept the same and returned the said unit. On 10.08.2012, the representatives of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 brought with them some other unit of 2012 model. However, after fixing the whole unit, when it gave huge sound, the representatives of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 left the unit in the same condition, and promised to come back on the next day, but nobody came to replace the defective unit. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.  

3.                Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while contesting the claim of the Complainant has pleaded that the month of March, being a pleasant month, does not warranty usage of the Air Conditioner and as per the complaint, the Complainant purchased the Air Conditioner on 18.03.2011, which was installed on 19.03.2011, and allegedly within three days from the installation, the gas from the compressor got leaked, which is indigestible, as the requirement of Air Conditioner normally starts in the months of May/June onwards. It is further pleaded that if it is purposed that the gas charging was topped up by the Opposite Party No.3 in March, 2011, there can be no reason to believe that again it required topping up of the gas within a period of one month as alleged by the Complainant. Leakage of gas exceptionally can only be upon too much usage of Air Conditioner for a long and constant duration or if the Air Conditioner is mishandled, under these circumstances only there can be a possibility of leakage of gas. It appears that there could be some misunderstanding between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3, as it is surprising that the Complainant preferred to approach Opposite Party No.3 always and not answering Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who are authorized service providers on behalf of the company and Opposite Party No.3 happens to be only a sales outlet, and has nothing to do with after sales service. It is admitted that an inspection was carried on 05.07.2012 and the compressor was replaced only as a gesture of goodwill and to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It is asserted that though the product carries one year complete warranty, however, the compressor carries an additional warranty of four years and thus in endeavour to resolve the issue, the answering Opposite Parties without going into matter, preferred to replace the compressor. It is also asserted that the answering Opposite Parties are at the receiving end on account of the non-cooperative behavior of the Complainant which is causing uncalled harassment to them for no fault of theirs despite their having provided timely, prompt and efficient after sales service as and when required and the answering Opposite Parties cannot be held liable falsely with regards to the product having any manufacturing defect, as no such documentary evidence has been adduced on record by the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

6.                The Complainant having purchased a Voltas Spilt 1.5 Ton Vertis plus Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.3 on 18.03.2011 by paying an amount of Rs.27,500/- including taxes. Immediately, after the installation of the said Air Conditioner, in the month of May, 2011, the gas of the Air Conditioner started to leak; the matter was reported and the service engineer of the Opposite Parties filled the gas and made sure that the Air Conditioner was working fine.  The Complainant thereafter, once again, reported the matter to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 12.05.2011, vide complaint no. 12m2405415. After the receipt of this complaint, the engineer of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 again visited the premises of the Complainant and declared that the compressor unit of the said Air Conditioner was faulty and required to be replaced.  The Complainant once again raised the matter with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 by writing letters dated 19.06.2012, and 11.07.2012. Similarly, on these two occasions i.e. dated 03.07.2012 and 05.07.2012, the problems of gas leakage, as well as faulty compressor, were registered by the service engineer in his service reports of like dates.  

7.                The Complainant, even after making numerous efforts, was unable to get the Air Conditioner, in proper working condition, and was not able to enjoy the benefits of the investments made by her in buying the Air Conditioner from the Opposite Parties. Though the Opposite Parties in their reply has claimed that the problem with the Air Conditioner was out of warranty period, as of now, but to our mind, if the problem, which had occurred, within the warranty period, initially, and has not been rectified, till date, does not entitle Opposite Parties to claim that the said problem, is now, out of the warranty period, as they were unable to remove the difficulty in their first attempt. It is also an admitted case of the Opposite Parties that the compressor unit of the Air Conditioner was within the five yeas warranty period, but at the same time, for such faulty compressor, the gas of the Air Conditioner does not remains controlled in the system; we feel, that the leakage of the gas too, is covered and the same warranty conditions as that of the compressor.   

8.                Though the Opposite Parties, while arguing the matter, have volunteered to again change the compressor of the Air Conditioner, as a goodwill gesture, but to our mind, after having repaired the Air Conditioner in question for as many as five times, within a span of one year, leaves no other option with us, but to declare that the Opposite Parties have failed to rectify the defect of the said Air Conditioner, and the Complainant cannot be subjected to such an exercise, again and again. Hence, the inability of the Opposite Parties to repair the Air Conditioner to the satisfaction of the Complainant, amounts to deficiency in service and the same deserves to be addressed in that manner alone. 

9.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

[a]    To take back the air conditioner in question from the premises of the Complainant, at their own cost, and return the invoice price of Rs.27,500/- to the Complainant;

[b)    To pay Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

10.              The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 9 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

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

Announced

15^th May, 2013.                                        

                                                                                                Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER