DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 295 of 15.09.2022

Decided on : 24-04-2024

M/s Dev Raj Garg (contractor), through its Prop. Dev Raj Garg aged about 73 years S/o Bant Ram R/o T-4, Bibi Wala, H.No.Z-5-06433, Street No.10/6, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda

........Complainant

Versus

1. Voltas Ltd., Voltas House-A, Dr.Baba Sahib Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033, through its Prop./ Manager /M.D./Partner/Incharge.

    

2. Voltas Ltd., A-43, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Prop./ Manager /M.D./ Partner/ Incharge.

    

3. Radha Enterprises, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Manager/Partner/Incharge.

    

4. Voltas Service Centre Friends Refrigeration, ACS Centre, Opp. Old Dr.Waddi Street, Veer Colony, Bathinda, through its Prop./ Manager/M.D./Partner/Incharge.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Smt. Priti Malhotra, President

Smt. Sharda Attri, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh.Naveen Singla, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh.Bharat Bhushan Bansal, Advocate.

ORDER

Priti Malhotra, President

1. The complainant M/s Dev Raj Garg (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Voltas Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Voltas Chest Freezer 320 DD Convert vide invoice No.2 for Rs.22,500/- on 1.4.2022 from opposite party No.3 with sufficient warranty of 5 years on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and 2.

3. It is alleged that after sometime from the date of purchase, the freezer stopped working as it did not give cooling. The complainant made many complaints with opposite party No.3, it asked him to visit opposite party No.4. He approached opposite party No.4, its employee/technician checked the freezer, but the defect was not cured. Opposite parties issued the complaint No.22083016997, 22082204633 through text message. In the end the employee/technician did not succeed to cure the defect and he declared that there is manufacturing defect in the freezer. After that the complainant many times approached opposite parties by visiting personally and through e-mail and requested either to replace the freezer or refund its amount, but to no effect. Now, opposite parties have totally declined the requests of the complainant.

4. It is alleged that due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the defected fridge with new one alongwith fresh warranty or refund its amount and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raising preliminary objections that the complainant made purchase of the freezer on 1.4.2022 and he enjoyed full season with the freezer without any fault. At the premises of the complainant, there is high voltage problem as there is electricity fluctuation and due to it, freezer is not working properly. As such, there is no problem at the time of purchase and till date in the chest freezer. The complainant has not filed the complaint within limitation. As such, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and he has stated wrong facts in the complaint and has concealed the material facts from this Commission. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and it has been filed in order to harass opposite parties and it is also abuse of process and wastage the precious time of court. The complaint is filed just to blackmail and humiliate opposite parties. The complainant does not fall under the definition of 'Act', as such, the complaint should be dismissed on this score.

6. On merits, opposite parties have reiterated their version as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 15.9.2022, (Ex.C9) and the documents, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C8).

8. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Kamal Kaushik dated 12.9.2023, (Ex.OP1/1) and documents, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3).

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully.

10. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one Voltas Chest Freezer 320 DD Convert for Rs.22,500/- on 1.4.2022 from opposite party No.3 vide Ex.C1 with 1 year warranty on it and 4 years warranty on its compressor as per Ex.C2. After purchase, the freezer started creating problems relating to its compressor. E-mails, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5) prove this fact.

13. As per opposite parties, at the premises of the complainant, there was high voltage problem as there was electricity fluctuation and due to this, the freezer is not working properly, but there is no document on file to prove this fact. The complainant has purchased the freezer on 1.4.2022 and defect occurred in it at first time on 31.8.2022 as per e-mail, (Ex.C3) i.e. within the warranty period and within a very short span of time and opposite parties failed to rectify the defect alleging that this is high voltage problem. This bald plead of opposite parties reflects that there must be a manufacturing defect in the freezer. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of price value of the freezer due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties as opposite parties failed to remove the defect in the freezer within the warranty period.

14. In view of what has been discussed above, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to refund the price value of the freezer i.e. Rs.22,500/- to the complainant and at the same time, the complainant will handover the freezer to opposite parties.

15. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

16. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite parties will be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced

    24-04-2024

    1. (Priti Malhotra)

    President

     

     

    (Sharda Attri)

    Member