Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/254

Indransh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

20 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:254 dated 20.06.2022.                             

                           Date of decision: 20.12.2023.

 

Indransh Gupta son of Late Inderjeet Gupta, r/o H.No.138 Surjeet Enclave, Churpur Road, Near Sangam Palace Chowk, Haibowal, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab.                                                                                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Head Office:- Voltas Limited, Voltas House ‘A’, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033, India.

Ludhiana Office:- Voltas Service Centre, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab, Contact No.99880-81754.

                                                                            …..Opposite party

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         None.

For OP                           :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Voltas AC on 18.03.2018. The said AC stopped working and a complaint was booked on 2.4.2022 with request ID 22040227786. The complainant further called the OP’s local service centre on 3^rd and 4^th April 2022, who told the complainant to expect the service in 20 days. The complainant got expert advice from outside on 6.4.2022 who told to get the AC repaired from company. The complainant started communicating with OP on Twitter on 16.04.2022 and technician was assigned on 17.04.2022, who came and told to change PSB part which will cost Rs.15,000/- to which the complainant was agreed. The complainant followed up communicated with OP’s local service Manager Mr.Sukhraj and technician came on 20.05.2022 to replace the part but it did not work. Thereafter, Mr.Sukhraj told the complainant that AC will be replaced after charging 40%-45% depreciation to which the complainant was agreed. The complainant received call from OP’s social media team on 26.05.2022 to inform that another PCB part is on the way and when the complainant talked to Mr.Sukhraj but he did not communicate to the complainant that replacement was kept on hold. The Act got repaired on 2.6.2022 and the service executed charged Rs.9591/- for the PCB part and labour cost. After that the complainant got online bill for the service that mentioned Rs.9475.22P for the same service. The complainant enquired about the same from the service executive but he did not clarify the same. Charging of difference in bill and non-providing the right and proper service to the complainant is claimed to be deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, by filing the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to OP to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to the complainant and also to reimburse the charges/replacement of AC along with litigation expenses.

2.                 Upon notice of the complaint, opposite party appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint on the ground that the complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that the obligation of the answering OP under warranty is to set right the air conditioner by repairing or replacing the defective part within one year of its purchase as per the terms of the warranty. The warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase subject to terms and conditions duly mentioned in the warranty card issued at the time of purchase. Further, it is submitted that the AC in question was purchased on 18.03.2018 and it carries warranty of one year from the date of purchase. During the warranty period of one year which expired on 17.03.2019, no defect has been reported by the complainant. The first complaint was lodged in April 2022 which was duly attended by OP2. On checking the product, it was found that PCB Board needs to be replaced. As the PCB board was not readily available, OP2 raised the demand for the same with OP1. However, despite best efforts, OPs could not arrange the required part and the same was made available on 02.06.2022 on chargeable basis as the product was out of warranty. After changing the required part on 02.06.2022, the AC in question was perfectly working. The OP2 issued the estimated receipt regarding the cost of the PCB as Rs.8883/- and Rs.708/- was charged towards labour charges and in total a sum of Rs.9591/- was charged from the complainant and OP2 assured the complainant if there is any price difference in the final bill which is to be prepared by OP1, then excess amount, if any shall be refunded to the complainant under proper receipt. Accordingly, OP2 offered to return Rs.116/- to the complainant but complainant was not willing to issue the receipt to the OP2. The excess amount charged inadvertently could not be returned to the complainant and the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the abovesaid true facts. The AC in question is perfectly working and there is no inherent defect. The complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement or refund of price of AC along with compensation and damages. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence regarding authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approval Laboratory in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any independent expert evidence, the claim cannot be allowed. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of the answering OP. On merits, rest of the allegations levelled in the complaint have been specifically denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                In the present case, no evidence of the complainant produced since 23.12.2022 despite grant of sufficient opportunities including last and final chance. Even cost of Rs.200/- imposed vide order dated 26.10.2023 was not paid by the complainant. In these circumstances, this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence in order to establish his pleadings as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden of proving deficiency in service on the part of the OP by way of any credible evidence.

4.                In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. "6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent." 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

"28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service."

                   The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further upheld this view in recent judgment II(2023) CPJ 83 (SC) in Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Chandramohan. In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by any cogent and convincing evidence. 

5.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                     (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.12.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma