CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.301/2010
MR. SAMDARSHI SANJAY
S/O LATE SH. N.K. CHOUDHARY,
R/O 55, INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENTS,
POCKET-III, SECTOR-12, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S VOLTAS LIMITED,
CORPORATE AND REGD. OFFICE AT:-
VOLTAS HOUSE,
A-BLOCK DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR ROAD,
CHINCHPOKLI, MUMBAI-400033
ALSO AT:-
ZONAL HEADQUARTERS,
UPPER GROUND FLOOR,
A/43, MOHAN CO-OPERATIE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
- KBM ELECTRONICS,
1/32 LALITA PARK,
MAIN VIKAS MARG,
LAXMI NAGAR,
DELHI-110092
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 14.07.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that on 26.04.2007 complainant purchased an air-conditioner from OP-2 who is authorized dealer of OP-1 for a sum of Rs.16,500/-. The purchaser was entitled for two years warranty within first year of purchase however, the same was not provided by OPs.
It is further stated that immediately on expiry of warranty period the product started giving problem. The matter was informed to the Customer Care of OP-1 and one of the technician from the authorized Refrigeration and Air-conditioning company of OP-1 namely Unique Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Company came to the complainant’s place for inspection of the product on 07.06.2008. The technician informed the complainant that the gas has leaked and it has to be refilled. The product was taken for filling of the gas and returned on 09.06.2008 for which complainant paid Rs.2500/-. It is further stated that before the start of summer season of 2009 the product developed a similar problem. Again the product was taken by the technician of authorized service station on 24.6.2009 and the product was returned on 25.6.2009 and complainant paid Rs.2500/-. It is stated that even after filling of gas, the product was not cooling properly. It was brought to the notice of OP as complaint was made on 29.6.09. Since no one approached the complainant to rectify the defect, a complaint was lodged vide mail dated 01.07.09 and in response OP-1 called the complainant and said that due to extreme hot and humid conditions the product was not performing at its optimum and convinced the complainant that the problem shall be resolved if in future any defect arose in the product.
It is further stated that again in 2010 before the start of summer season the product started giving problem. The complaint was made at the service centre of OP-1. No one turned up accordingly complainant was constrained to issue notice vide email dated 26.04.2010. On the receipt of notice, the authorized technician visited the residence of the complainant an after checking the product, informed the complainant that the cooling gas has leaked. Complainant requested the technician to replace the product but to no avail. After deliberations, the authorized service technician agreed to repair the product at a discounted cost of Rs.2000/-. The product was again taken and was returned after filling of the gas. It is stated that every time the product stopped cooling before summer season and it is on account of manufacturing defect in the air-conditioner. It is also stated that even after repair the product stopped cooling and non-functional condition as on date of filing of the complaint. It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP-2 was proceeded ex parte.
OP-1 in the reply took the plea that the product in question is out of warranty and instituted after more than three years after purchase hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the product in question was installed by the complainant without voltage stabilizer as a result product suffered problem. OP-1 has provided both the free services to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has paid for the service provided by authorized service centre of OP-1 as the warranty period has expired. It is stated that there is no question of replacement of the product as there was no manufacturing defect in the product. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
The product was not suffering from any manufacturing defect. The product has not developed any problem during the warranty period. The perusal of complaint itself shows that in fact after the warranty period, there was some problem of cooling and every year before the summer season, the gas was filled up by the authorized service centre of OP-1 and for which service centre has charged the amount. The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. In fact the product has been purchased on 26.04.2007 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 18.05.2010. The same is hopelessly barred by limitation. Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
