Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/29/2018

Ramesh Kumar Khurana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Sharma Adv.

05 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint No.	:	29/2018
Date of Institution	:	17.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	05/06/2018

 

                                                                               

                                                                                               

Ramesh Kumar Khurana s/o Sh.Jamuna Dass r/o H. No.1144, Sector 15, Panchkula.

                                                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.             Voltas Ltd., through its Managing Director, Voltas House “B”, 2^nd Floor, t-13, Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400033 having its Regional Office at: SCO No.201-202-203, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

2.            R.C. Service Centre, Authorized by Voltas Ltd., through its Manager, Shop No.15, Peer Baba Road, Baltana, District Mohali.

 

3.            Electrowave (Multi Brand Shop), through its Owner/Manager, SCO No.1093, Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:   Sh.Nitin Sharma, Adv. for the complainant

                                Sh.Rajinder Pandey, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2.

                                OP No.3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.                 Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a Voltas Window AC 1.50 T from OP No.3 vide invoice dated 19.03.2017 for Rs.25,800/-.  According to him,  from the very beginning of its installation, the AC started giving the problem of cooling.  He made complaint through Customer Care numbers on 24.03.2017 but it entertained the complaint only on 18.08.2017 vide complaint No.17081804634 and during this period, the AC remained in as usual condition.  According to the complainant, the technician of the OPs took the circuit and full plate i.e. assembly line of the AC with him. After 10 days, the technician of the OPs came and installed the part of the AC and went away by saying that the AC is working okay.  However, the AC started giving the problem of cooling on the very next day.  Therefore, he apprised the technician of the OPs on phone but to no effect.  Thereafter, he gave a complaint dated 31.10.2017 to OP No.3.  It has further been averred that on the said complaint, the technician of the OPs visited the premises on 20.12.2017 i.e. after 2 months and replaced the stabilizer but despite its replacement, the AC did not work. Therefore, the technician of the OPs told that there is problem in the AC so they have to take it for repair purposes.  It has further been averred that no one came to take the AC for its repairs.  He many times telephoned on the customer care number of the OPs but all in vain. 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 their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 have pleaded that the AC is still under warranty and the complainant is misleading the Court by neither cooperating nor portraying the exact status of the defect to enable them to ascertain the veracity of the nature of the complaint as he is resorting to pressure tactics solely for the reasons to gain undue advantage of the Court.  It is pertinent to mention here that the AC was delivered brand new to the complainant, hence there cannot be said to be any kind of manufacturing defect in the product since the product is manufactured under stringent quality control and in latest state of art factories.  It has been pleaded that if the complainant desirous to resolve the issue amicably, they are willing to inspect the said AC and rectify the defect provided there is a genuine defect. 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.                 The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OPs No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.                 Despite due service through registered post, the OP No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.03.2018.
5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.                 The complainant alleged in the complaint that the AC in question started giving the problem of cooling since the day of its installation i.e. 24.03.2017 but he has not been able to place on record any documentary evidence regarding the complaints made in this regard to the OPs.  However, he made the complaint on 18.08.2017 on which the OPs carried out the repairs to the AC but it again started giving the same problem. He has placed on record a copy of the complaint dated 31.10.2017 alleged to have been made to OP No.3 but no proof regarding the delivery thereof has been attached.  However he has placed on record a copy of the job sheet dated 20.12.2017 issued by the service center of OP No.1 and from the remarks made thereon, it is evident that he was not satisfied with the working of the AC because the compressor was not working.  Since, the AC in question was under warranty and as such it was the responsibility of the OPs No.1 and 2 to set right the defect in the AC within the warranty period but they did not bother to do so. Under the compelled circumstances, he has to file the instant complaint before the Forum. It was only after the filing of the complaint that OPs No.1 and 2 have showed their willingness and readiness to inspect and rectify the defect in the AC in question.
7.                 Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and to end the controversy between the parties,  we are of the considered view that it would be in the fitness of things if OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to rectify the defects in the AC in question and the complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation on account of the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him on account of the unwarranted litigation.  
8.                 From the perusal of the complaint, it seems that the complainant is more inclined towards the replacement/refund of the AC, in question than its repairs. However, the law on the point is well settled that if the defect(s) can be set right by repair/replacement of part(s), there is no need to replace the machine as a whole.  As such, we are of the view that the complainant cannot be granted the relief of replacement of the AC at this stage.
9.                 In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 and 2 to make the AC in question fully functional by replacing the compressor/defective parts, if any, free of costs.   Besides this, they are also directed to pay Rs.7,500/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment undergone by him including litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of the directions aforesaid.
10.                 The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.  
11.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                                                                     sd/-

Announced	[S.K.SARDANA]	[RAJAN DEWAN]
05/06/2018	MEMBER	PRESIDENT