2. M/s Shiva Electronics, Near Bus Stand, Kalanwali, Distt. Sirsa # 125201, Mob. No. 93542-84716, 98135-67891, through its Manager/ Proprietor Mr. Lovekesh & Mr. Inderpal.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (now after amendment under section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………MEMBER
Present: Sh. P.S. Rathore, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) with the averments that on 19.8.2015 complainant had purchased a Voltas Window Air Conditioner of 1.5 ton Model 1050T Voltas 183 Lxi for an amount of Rs.27,000/- from op no.2 alongwith other house hold products for his daughter after every type of assurances given by op no.1 about best quality of the AC in question. Op no.1 also gave 5 years warranty (1+4) of the air conditioner. The above said air conditioner was got installed at matrimonial home of daughter of complainant at village Kot Shamir, District Bathinda (Punjab). That on 9.6.2019 around 8.30 p.m. daughter of complainant Satvir Kaur switched on air conditioner through remote and came out of the room for some work. After ten minutes, the whole family of his daughter heard a massive explosion from the room where the air conditioner was installed and smoke was coming out of the closed door and windows of the room. When they opened the door, they found that everything inside engulfed into fire flames, dense smoke and darkness. That immediately, water buckets were poured down on fire flames but whole interior of the room alongwith furniture, LED TV and other articles were burnt completely. It is further averred that Satvir Kaur alongwith other family members found that above said air conditioner unit had been blown and this blast was due to explosion of compressor of the AC. On next day i.e. 10.6.2019, complainant and his son-in-law Sh. Jaskaran Singh approached op no.1 on their toll free number and informed them regarding the above said incident and loss but they got totally surprised when Customer care executive told them that company would charge Rs.470/- (400+18%GST) for paying visit to the place of incident and then only will make an inquiry regarding the explosion. Thereafter, complainant also approached to op no.2 but he stated that they are just retail/ sale point and afterwards only Voltas company is responsible for the product and since then complainant has approached them many times but all in vain. The complainant also sent a legal notice to ops on 9.7.2019 to op no.1 on its email ID. That firstly op no.1 asked for certain details which were provided promptly but thereafter op no.1 refused to process the genuine claim of complainant on the shoddy ground of missing details. It is further averred that ops have caused deficiency in service and have adopted unfair trade practice towards the complainant by selling substandard unit of air conditioner and due to act and conduct of ops, complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and monetary loss. The complainant is entitled to refund of full amount of air conditioner or for replacement of AC with new one of same description and is also entitled to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of loss, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment and also an amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections of cause of action, maintainability, concealment of correct facts and that complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/ technical fault and has not placed on record any analysis report/ expert opinion as per provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, which is mandatory. On merits, it is submitted that in fact the alleged unit was purchased by complainant on 19.8.2015. The answering op company provides one year warranty for the unit and also five years warranty for the compressor of the unit and the warranty of the unit is subject to the conditions and guidelines of use of unit by answering op. That after the date of purchase of unit i.e. 19.8.2015, no problem has been reported by the complainant which is evident of the fact that till the date of complaint, the unit was working completely OK. It is further submitted that unit in question is an electronic product (AC) and for the proper working as well as to avail warranty of the compressor of the unit and for good life of the unit, periodic maintenance/ service of the unit is mandatory. In the present case, as per records of answering op company, no maintenance/ service call or request has been registered by the complainant since the date of purchase and also no record of the periodic maintenance/ service has been annexed by complainant which is evident of the fact that the unit has been used by complainant in very ruff manner, without getting periodic service/ maintenance and due to the careless use of the unit, the alleged incident might have been happened. It is further submitted that if the unit would have been serviced/ maintained by the authorized service center/ expert engineer of the company, the complainant might claim the warranty of five years for the compressor of the alleged unit and in view of above facts, there might by any of the reason open to the probabilities of damage by any other reason. The bare allegation is not sufficient to prove the allegations that actually the alleged blast of compressor of the unit had happened due to any fault or short coming in the unit or is a result of any other cause such as a short circuit of electricity or any other reason. In order to get the same properly checked and to ascertain the actual cause for the alleged blast in compressor of unit, a proper investigation/ report is mandatory to be furnished by complainant as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (C) of the Act. In the absence of same, the allegations of complainant are of no force. It is also submitted that warranty provided by answering op company is subject to some conditions and guidelines of use as stated above and in violation of same, the warranty of the unit got automatically barred. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
3. OP no.2 did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered cover and after waiting for stipulated period, since none appeared on behalf of op no.2, it was proceeded against exparte.
4. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Jaskaran Singh Ex.CW2/A, bills Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5, Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, copy of technician visit report in burnt cases Ex.C8, photographs Ex.C9 to Ex.C18.
5. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Puneet Sharma as Ex. RW1/A.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that due to massive blast in the compressor of the air conditioner which was in warranty period, damage to the walls and roof of the room and its interior was caused and other household articles i.e. bed, set of mattress, set of pillow, bed sheets, LED TV besides air conditioner in question alongwith stabilizer were completely burnt and ops are liable to compensate the complainant and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops while reiterating the contents of written statement has vehemently argued that product in question i.e. air conditioner was purchased from op no.2 from Kalanwali, District Sirsa whereas admittedly it was being used in District Bathinda. Moreover, admittedly complainant is not user of the air conditioner therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. He has further contended that even matter has not been reported to the police and complainant has failed to prove his allegations by leading any authentic and reliable evidence by way of any expert opinion. He has contended that though complainant has placed on file a document called Technician visit report in burnt cases as Ex.C8 but that is not signed by any Technician/ person and even name of the person who prepared this document/ report is also not mentioned and therefore, said document cannot be read in evidence. He has also contended that complainant has also violated the terms and conditions of warranty of air conditioner in question and failed to prove on record that alleged blast in the compressor of AC was only due to any technical fault and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
9. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly the air conditioner in question alongwith other household articles was purchased by complainant for a sum of Rs.27,000/- from op no.2 on 19.8.2015 and said fact is also proved from bill Ex.C1. The incident of fire took place on 10.6.2019 i.e. after about four years of purchase of air conditioner in question. However, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that the reason of fire was only due to technical fault in the air conditioner and was not due to any other reason i.e. fluctuation of electricity or short circuit in other appliances like refrigerator, LED TV etc. Though, complainant has placed on file a document called as Technician visit report in burnt cases as Ex.C8 in which it is mentioned that fire got originated from unit from back side but that document is not signed by any expert technician/ engineer. It is also not proved from this document that who prepared this document and whether the person who prepared this document was a competent and expert technician or not. So, this document cannot be relied upon.
10. The complainant has alleged that after incident on next day i.e. on 10.6.2019, he alongwith his son-in-law Sh. Jaskaran Singh approached op no.1 on their toll free number and informed them regarding the incident of compressor explosion but the customer care executive told them that company would charge Rs.470/- (400+18%GST) for paying visit to the place of incident and then only will make an inquiry regarding the explosion. Since it was a case of explosion/ fire and not of any other issue regarding working of the air conditioner, therefore, company asked the complainant that they will charge an amount of Rs.470/- for paying visit to the place of incident and for inspection and for knowing reason of explosion and as such the said amount has not been illegally demanded by customer care executive of company op no.1 rather complainant should have made payment of the said amount for inspection of the place of incident as well as burnt air conditioner for the competent expert engineers of the company but the complainant has failed to do so for the reason best known to him. Further more, it is categorical stand of op no.1 that complainant has used the product in very ruff manner without getting periodic service/ maintenance and after the date of purchase, no service record has been found for the unit of complainant and there is also probabilities of damage by any other reason. The op no.1 has also asserted that warranty provided by op company is subject to some conditions and guidelines of use and for violation of same, the warranty of the unit got automatically barred. The complainant has not proved on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that periodic service/ maintenance of air conditioner has been got done and the possibility of damage/ fire by any other reason cannot be ruled out. Moreover, complainant has not reported the matter to the police authorities and matter has not been got enquired into from the competent authority for knowing the exact reason of incident in question and therefore, it cannot be said that alleged incident of fire only took place due to technical fault in the air conditioner. As such complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
11. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member Member President,
Dated: 20.05.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
(JK)
