Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/313/2016

Sh. Puran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gautam Bhardwaj Adv. & Vijay Kumar Gupta Adv.

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	313 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	06.05.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	29.11.2016

 

 

 

 

Sh.Puran Singh s/o Khyali Singh, R/o 2271, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Voltas Ltd., through its Managing Director, Voltas House “b”, 2^nd Floor, T-13, Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 40033

2]  Voltas Ltd., Chandigarh, Branch Office through its Manager, SCO 201-203, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3]  Utility Engineers through it Manager, SCO No.310, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.  

….. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate  

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Sanjay Judge, Adv. for OPs NO.1 & 2.

 

  Sh.Amandeep Singh, Authorised Agent for      

  OP-3.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased a Voltas Split AC 1.5 Ton alongwith stabilizer 4 KV from OP No.3 on 9.5.2015 for total sum of Rs.39,300/- vide Ann.C-1.  It is averred that the said AC did not work properly and started giving problem/trouble of cooling, as such a complaint was lodged on 6.8.2015, whereupon the Technician of OPs repaired the AC and assured about proper cooling.  The same problem of cooling again occurred in the AC and therefore, a complaint was lodged on 9.10.2015, but the technician of the OPs failed to rectify the defect, as the problem again occurred after sometime.  It is also averred that the complainant again made complaint to the Customer Care of the OPs on 15.4.2016, but when no one came to attend the complaint, the complainant sent legal notice on 22.4.2016, whereupon the technician of Opposite Party NO.2 visited and repaired the AC, who replaced the entire piping of the AC and charged Rs.4200/- against receipt.  However, despite all that the AC is not giving proper cooling.  It is asserted that the purpose of purchase of AC has failed as the AC was not giving proper cooling. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       The OPs NO.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and admitted the sale of the AC in question to the complainant.  It is stated that the complaint as averred is of general in nature i.e. no cooling which is not feasible and appears to be unreasonable for the reasons that all the products manufactured by answering Opposite Party NO.2 are manufactured in the latest state of art factories and under stringent quality controls.  It is also stated that the complainant lodged complaints on two occasions firstly on 03.05.2016 and secondly on 10.5.2016.  The complaint was of extremely minor nature and was executed, despite the same, the complainant did not affix his signatures on the job service report with malafide intentions.  It is further stated that the complainant had earlier got the pipe replaced by paying Rs.4200/- to the answering Opposite Parties on account of damage to the gas pipe at the end of the complainant, to his fullest satisfaction (Ann.R-1 & R-2).  It is pleaded that on receipt of legal notice, Opposite Party NO.2 visited the premises of the complainant and after inspection of the product in question, found that there was minor defect in the piping of the AC, which was got replaced to the satisfaction of the complainants on chargeable basis as the changing of pipe is done on chargeable basis.  Rest of allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.3 adopted the reply of OPs No.1 & 2 by appending a note on the reply of OPs NO.1 & 2, which is clear from order dated 01.07.2016.

 

3]      Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that made in the reply of the OPs. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record as well as written arguments.

 

6]       The main dispute in the present complaint is that the Voltas Split AC 1.5 Ton, having value of R.39,300/-, purchased by the complainant on 9.5.2015, failed to give proper cooling.  The complainant alleged that the complaints lodged by him with the OPs on 6.5.2015 and 9.10.2015 were duly attended by their technician, but despite its repair, the AC in question failed to give proper cooling. As per the complainant, again a complaint on 15.4.2016 was lodged with the OPs, but when none attended the complaint, he issued a legal notice dated 22.4.2016.  In response to the said notice, the technician of the OPs attended the complaint and replaced the entire piping of the AC and charged Rs.4200/- for the same vide Receipt No.1536, dated 03.05.2016.  As per the complainant, despite changing of the pipe content of the AC, the problem of improper cooling persisted.  With this grouse, the complainant lodged the present complaint and sought relief against the OPs to replace the AC with new one or to refund the cost of the AC along with interest besides Rs.4200/- charged by the OPs for the repair of the AC, apart from paying compensation and litigation cost.   

 

7]       Contrary to the allegations of the complainant, it is stated by OPs that they provided due services to the complainant and it is only on two occasions that the complainant approached the answering OPs i.e. on 3.5.2016 and 10.5.2016 respectively and they duly entertained the complaints of the complainant by providing due services. They further claimed that the complainant has lodged the present complaint only to harass the OPs and for undue enrichment. 

 

8]       In our opinion, the OPs belied that they were approached by the complainant only on two occasions as the complainant has categorically mentioned in his complaint that he made complaints on 6.8.2015 and 9.10.2015 through Customer Care vide Complaint Nos.15080603182 and 1510901340 respectively.  As the OPs have failed to place on record the documents showing complaints received through Customer Care on the respective dates, in order to contradict the allegation of the complainant, so, an adverse inference is drawn against them.

 

9]       As far as the complaint made through Customer Care on 15.4.2016 vide Complaint No.16041513084 is concerned, it also goes unrebutted by OPs No.1 & 2 by way any cogent evidence.  It is on record as well as admitted by OPs NO.1 & 2 that they changed the piping of the AC by receiving Rs.4200/- as there was damage to the gas pipe.  The OPs further failed to prove that the damage to the gas pipe occurred at the end of the complainant, as alleged in their reply.  It is also clear on record that the replacement of the pipe of AC has also been done by OPs in response to the legal notice dated 22.4.2016. 

 

10]      Further, it is well clear on record that the complainant purchased the said AC on 9.5.2015 and the said replacement of pipe of AC was done on 3.5.2016 i.e. within the warranty period.  The replacement of pipe within the warranty period, costed the complainant Rs.4200/-, which has wrongly been charged by the OPs.  In the absence of any warranty conditions on record, an adverse inference is drawn against the OPs, who wrongly charged Rs.4200/- for the replacement of pipe of the AC, when the product was within the warranty period.

 

11]      The Job Card dated 10.5.2016, placed on record as Ann.R-1 by OPs NO.1 & 2, where they have taken the objection that the complainant has used the said AC commercially and also reported that the AC is working fine, seems to be not genuine.  The OPs NO.1 & 2 have not placed on record any complaint made by the complainant on the prescribed date i.e. 10.5.2016, hence it is wrong on the part of OPs NO.1 & 2 to state that the AC in question is functioning properly, as the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the grouse that despite repeated repairs, the AC in question is not giving proper cooling for the purpose for which it was purchased. The plea regarding commercial utilization of the AC in question is not sustainable as the OPs No.1 & 2 have failed to prove such allegation by any evidence on record.

 

12]      In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the AC in question, which remained under repair on number of occasions, still persist with the problem of improper cooling.  Therefore, we feel that the replacement of the said AC would meet the ends of justice. 

 

13]      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly, the same is allowed against Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

1. To replace the existing Split AC Unit of the complainant with brand new Split AC Unit of the same make, model and configuration, free of cost;
2. To pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.8000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses;

 

         This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on compensation amount as mentioned at sub-para (b) from the date of order till realisation, apart from complying with direction as at sub-para (a) above.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30^th November, 2016                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

          (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER