Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/466/2018

Ankit Dogra - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS LTD (Head Office) - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Gupta Adv.

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	466/2018
Date of Institution	:	16.08.2018
Date of Decision	:	04.02.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Ankit Dogra s/o Sh.Baldev Krishan Dogra r/o H.No.4090, Near Sunny Club, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave, Kharar-140301.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Voltas Ltd., (Head Office), SCO 201-202-203, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh

 

2.     Paras Enterprises (Voltas AC), SCO 357-358, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

PRESENT:-

                   Sh.Abhishek Gupta, Adv. for complainant

                   Sh.Rajinder Pandey, Advocate for OP No.1

                   OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased two ACs worth Rs.32,500/- including GST of Rs.6943/- each from OPs vide invoice dated 12.03.2018.  On 28.05.2018, 1^st AC was not cooling the room  and 2^nd AC indoor unit was vibrating heavily and on his complaint, the service engineer told him that 1^st AC installation was faulty and 2^nd AC was made OK by giving some cushion in the indoor unit.  Surprisingly,  the OP claimed to have solved both the complaints and closed the same on 01.06.2018. However, he again raised the new complaint No.24 on 02.06.2018 for repairing 1^st AC which was resolved by replacing the same with a new one. It has further been averred that now 2^nd AC stopped cooling on 10.06.2018 and as such he made complaint No.948 on 11.06.2018.  However, the OP ignored the said complaint and tried to cancel it by marking it duplicate on 25.06.2018 and even after protest, the OP cancelled the same unilaterally and, therefore, he wrote e-mails to the OP on 06.07.2018. He also got served a legal notice dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure C-4) upon the OPs but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement,  OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that  the second AC was a duplicate product and the same was communicated vide e-mail dated 25.06.2018. It has further been pleaded that the serial number mentioned on the AC as 18061110948 was duplicate as the serial number in existence was 18060206024 and as such the onus is upon the complainant to prove whether the product purchased by him was bona fidely genuine or not.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Despite due service through registered post, the OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.09.2018.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         After giving our thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the parties and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted qua OP No.2 for the reasons stated hereinafter. In the written statement which is also supported by the affidavit  of Sh.Nitin Chambial, Area Service Manager, M/s Voltas Limited, Chandigarh, OP No.1 has clearly stated that  the second AC was a duplicate product and the same was communicated vide e-mail dated 25.06.2018 to the complainant. It was also stated that the serial number mentioned on the AC as 18061110948 was duplicate as the serial number in existence was 18060206024. It is, thus, established on record that the second AC was a duplicate product, which was sold to the complainant by OP No.2. Moreover, OP No.2 did not put in appearance either in person or through its representative/Counsel despite due service to rebut the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the written statement of OP No.1.  In this view of the matter, OP No.2 is proved to be deficient in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by selling duplicate product to the complainant.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed qua OP No.2 and the same is allowed accordingly. OP No.2 is directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.32,500/- i.e. the price of the AC having Sr.No.18061110948 to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.4,500/- as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by OP No.2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of the order till its actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. The OP No.2 is also directed to collect the AC having Sr.No. 18061110948 from the premises of the complainant after payment of the awarded amounts to him.

7.         The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                  sd/-                          sd/-

Announced	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
04/02/2019	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER