DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2018
Date of institution: 17.01.2018
Date of Decision:18.07.2021
Parminder Singh aged about 52 years son of Shri Harbant Singh, resident of House No.B-32/751, Near Jalandhar Bye-pass, Ludhiana
…….Complainant
Versus
- Voltas Limited, having its Head/Corporate Office at Voltas House, A Block, Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033
- M/s Diamond Refrigeration, # 235, New Model Town, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized signatory
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Smt. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. Amit Sood, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. Govind Puri, Adv. For OP1
OP2 ex-parte
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased one Voltas Split Air Conditioner 0.75 ton from OP No.2 vide invoice No.72 dated 11.10.2016 amounting to Rs.21,800/-. At that time the OPs have provided one year full guarantee of the said product to the complainant. In the month of May, 2017, the Air Conditioner started giving trouble as the same was not giving cooling. In this regard, the complainant approached the OP No.2 but OP suggested the complainant to approached the OP No.1. Accordingly, the complainant complained the OP No.1 at their toll free number on 22.5.2017 and upon which the OP No.1 sent his engineer to repair/check the same. But merely after three days same problem was repeated and the complainant again called the OPs on 25.5.2017. Thereafter, the OPs again sent their engineer to repair the same, but he could not resolve the said problem to the satisfaction of the complainant. Till date, the Air Conditioner is not working properly and is not giving cooling. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To direct the OPs to replace the Air Conditioning with the new one
- To pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, which the complainant has to face due to irresponsible attitude of the OPs.
- In reply, the OP No.1 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the true and correct facts from this Hon’ble Commission; that the complainant has not sought the permission of this Hon’ble Commission under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, before instituting the present complaint against the answering OPs. Said section clearly prohibits institution of any complaint before the District Commission if any or all of the opposite parties reside out the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission unless and until permission is sought from the District Commission for institution of the complaint. On merits, it is stated that the AC in question was perfectly working but the complainant has got installed aluminum pipes in the walls of his house to connect the indoor unit of the split Act within the outdoor unit. Whereas, the OPs recommends use of copper pipes for connecting outdoor unit with the indoor unit. As a result, when the copper pipe is welded with aluminum pipe it forms a very weak joint and it starts leaking after few days. In the present case, there occurs leakage of gas from the welding joint resulting in low cooling. The answering OP has advised him either replace the aluminum pipes fitted in his room wall with copper pipes or he should permit the answering OP to directly connect the outer unit with indoor unit with a single copper pipe without any joint by drilling hole in the wall, but the complainant did not permitted the answering OP to do the same. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
- The OP No.2 has choosen to remain exparte vide order dated 11.09.2018.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OP1 also tendered certain documents in support of their version.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that in this complaint, the complainant has alleged that he had purchased the Air Conditioner from OP No.2 with one year guarantee and after its purchase, the Air Conditioner started giving trouble. In support of his claim, the complainant has placed on record legal notice, invoice and copy of message sent to the OP for solving the problem of the Air Conditioner. The complainant has not placed on record any single document to show that the Air Conditioner having manufacturing defect and it is not made clear in the complaint then how the complainant is entitled to replace the Air Conditioner with the new one.
6. In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing averments in the complaint, I feel, that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. As such, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, the same is accordingly, dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
July 18, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
RBT/ CC No.43 of 2018
Present: Sh.Amit Sood, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh.Govind Puri, Adv. for OP No.1
OP No.2 exparte
Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
July,18 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
