Haryana

Panchkula

CC/70/2022

DR.SHASHI BANERJEE - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS LTD.VOLTAS HOUSE A - Opp.Party(s)

SHUBHAM SHARMA & NITESH MITTAL

16 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	70 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	28.02.2022
Date of Decision	:	16.08.2023

 

 

Dr.Shashi Banerjee wife of Prof. B.G.Banerjee, aged about 68 years resident of House No.177, Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, Haryana-134105.

                                                                            ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Voltas Limited, Voltas House A, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,         Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033 through its Chief Executive Officer.

2.     Voltas Limited, Plot No.194-195, First Floor, Industrial Area Phase-      2, Chandigarh-160002 through its Manager.

3.     Shri Vijay Sharma, Regional Customer Service Manager, Voltas Limited, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-       400033

4.     M/s Shiv Shakti Electronics Trunk Market, Shop No.2, Neelpur   Rajpura, Punjab-140401 through its Proprietor.      

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Shubham Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                         Sh. Sanjay Judge, Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.

                         OP No.4 already ex-parte vide order dated 16.5.2022.

 

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.The brief facts, as alleged inthe present complaint, are that the complainant had purchased six Voltas(1.5 ton) Inverter Air Conditioner (s)(hereinafter referred to as AC) from the opposite party no.4(hereinafter referred to as OP). The price of each AC was Rs. 39,594.18 including GST vide Invoice no.1798 dated 21.01.2021. The above ACs were the products of OPs No.1 & 2, which they had sold through OP No.4. All the six ACs were installed in the month of January, 2021 at the residence of the complainant by the technicians of OPs No.1 & 2. The above ACs were not put to use immediately as it was Winter Season. During the month of May, 2021, when the complainant started operating the above ACs, to her surprise, out of six installed ACs, two of them were not cooling at all. The complainant  immediately made telephonic complaint on 31.05.2021 and thereafter on repeated requests, two technicians from Voltas Care Centre, Panchkula visited the house of the complainant but went away with the excuse that they don’t have the adequate equipments to detect the problem in the two defective ACs. Thereafter, two technicians again visited the house of the complainant and told that they have to check the pressure in the internal pipes using  Nitrogen Gas on payment of Rs.500/- per device and the same was got done through them. They informed that there was some problem in internal AC pipe Line installed at her house. It is submitted that the complainant had outsourced the expert, who had laid the internal pipe when his house was being constructed. Thereafter, the complainant lodged written complaints with OPs No.1 to 3 on 10.06.2021, 14.06.2021, 15.06.2021, 20.06.2021, 03.07.2021, 09.09.2021, 26.09.2021, 05.10.2021 & 07.10.2021. The complainant had run from pillar to post and spent money to get the fault diagnosed, which should ideally have been detected by voltas staff either during installation or during their subsequent visits. Despite spending a hefty amount on buying Voltas product, the complainant had to bear the brunt of peak summers with those non functioning ACs installed in her bed room(s). It is submitted that after repetitive communication through emails, Voltas Executive came with his team and identified that there was some inherent fault in the machinery, which was the cause of its abysmal functioning and the two ACs were uninstalled with an assurance, that replacement would be done. It is stated that no action was taken by OPs to replace the defective ACs, which are lying on the floor and catching muck and occupying space. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 16.12.2021 to OPs No.1 to 3 through M/s Justizia Legal, Advocates and Solicitors. The Ops No.1 to 3 replied to the legal notice and in the reply it is mentioned that OPs No.1 & 2 have offered to replace the ACs but the Ops never actually came forward to replace the ACs though agreed for the same in their reply to legal notice.  Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notices, the OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that there is no expert report in support of complainant alleging the defects in the ACs; the products are under warranty and the Ops have never refused to provide any after sale service to the complainant, thus, the complaint is premature and deserves dismissal; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as 6 No’s of ACs, which were bought on 21.01.2021, are being constantly used by her; the District Consumer Commission, Panchkula has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had hired the services of private technician qua laying of internal AC’ pipes and in the process, the technician had damaged the 2 No’s of ACs and thus, there is no fault on the part of OPs. It is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the alleged two ACs, which were tempered/damaged/perforated by the external unauthorized technicians engaged by the complainant for laying down the AC pipe and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3; as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.         

                Notice was issued to the OP No.4 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.2, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 16.05.2022.

3.The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the authorized representative for OPs No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1/A along with documents as Annexure R-1/1 in evidence and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant and OPs No.1 to 3 and gone through the entire record including written arguments filed by complainant as well as OPs No.1 to 3, minutely and carefully.

5.The learned counsel on behalf of the OPs No.1 to 3 reiterating  the averments as made in written statement filed on behalf  of the OPs No.1 to 3 contended that the complainant has submitted  no expert report in support of her contentions alleging manufacturing defect in 2 No’s of ACs. It is contended that an expert report is mandatory to establish any manufacturing defect in a product as per provisions contained in Section 31(2)(C). The learned counsel has contended that the complainant had got completed the work of laying of internal AC Pipes through some private technician, who had caused damages to the alleged ACs and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous and baseless.

6.The aforesaid plea taken by the Ops No.1 to 3 it that 2 nos of ACs had got damaged in the process of laying of copper pipe line by private technical person is based only on the visit of its technical person, namely, Kaushalender on 09.07.2021, as per job-sheet(Annexure R-1/1). Pertinently, no affidavit of the said technical person, namely, Kaushalender is placed on record by Ops No.1 to 3. It is not the case of the OPs No.1 to 3 that the said technical person had left the job of the OPs or his whereabouts are not traceable. Therefore, the said plea alleging causing of damages to 2 nos of ACs by private person as hired by the complainant in the process of laying of copper pipeline is not tenable. The complainant has been found to have sent an email on 10.06.2021, 14.06.2021. 15.06.2021, 20.06.2021, 03.07.2021, 09.09.2021, 26.09.2021, 05.10.2021 & 07.10.2021 to Ops seeking the redressal of her grievances but no remedial measures were taken by the OPs. In the wake of the said emails sent by the complainant to OPs, it was imperative upon them to get the ACs inspected through a team comprising of highly qualified engineers with wide experience. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions, which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

7.Moreover, the contention of the OPs denying any defect in 2 nos of ACs stand negated in view of the averments made in para 8 of the reply(Annexure C-4) dated 23.12.2021 sent by OPs to the complainant’s counsel in response to legal notice dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure C-3), wherein the complainant was offered the replacement of 3 nos of ACs. Despite the offer of replacement qua 3 no’s of ACs made by Ops in the reply dated 23.12.2021(Annexure C-4), no action was taken by them qua replacement of the defective ACs. Therefore, the deficiency on the part of the Ops is well proved and accordingly, the OPs No.1 to 3 are held deficient for rendering deficient services to the complainant. The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.4.

8.In relief, the complainant has claimed the refund of price of two ACs along with installation charges. The complainant has also claimed on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

                As per Tax invoice(Annexure C-1), the price of one AC comes as Rs.30,166.66; hence, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.60,333/-  i.e. the price of two ACs.

9.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 to 3:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.60,333/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum(s.i.) w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to return of the two ACs to OPs No.1 to 3, who shall get the same collected from the complainant through its authorized service centre or any other agency.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation charges.

 

 

10. The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 16.08.2023

 

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President