Delhi

East Delhi

CC/730/2014

BRAHAMPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2018

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no         730 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  13/08/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 22/01/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          23/01/2018   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr.Brahm Pal Goyal, adult 

S/o Late Sh Chandra Prakah Goyal  

R/o- 9/5694, Dayanand Gali,   

Old Seelampur, Gandhinagar, Delhi 110051 …….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Voltas Ltd.  

B1/J2, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area,

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044

 

 2-M/s Coollite Refrigeration

12/36, Geeta Colony,

Delhi 110031……………………….…..………………...………………………  Opponents

 

Complainant……………………………………In  Person

Opponent ……....……………………………..Nahata & Company- Advocates

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case

  

Complainant purchased Voltas 1.5 ton Split AC having from Hindustan Refrigeration Centre for a sum of Rs 23,300/-vide invoice no. 14238 on dated 20/07/2009 (Ex CW1/1). It had been stated that the said AC was not cooling from 03/08/2011, so complainant lodged to OP1 customer care and was attended on the same date and service engineer rectified problem as ‘Wet Service’ and charged a sum of Rs 500/-as visit charges (Ex.CW1/2).

It had been stated that the said AC was not cooling properly from 25/05/2014 so lodged complaint to OP2/ Coollite Refrigeration. Service engineer checked the panel and told that gas had leaked so indoor panel would be taken to workshop and estimate of Rs 2200/- was given vide challan no. 2014. After repair, the internal panel was fitted on 13/06/2014 (Ex CW1/3).

Complainant stated that on 05/08/2014 again AC developed some problem and complaint was lodged with OP2. Service engineer visited and after checking the AC, gave estimate of Rs 1500/-which was objected by complainant that he had paid earlier Rs 2200/- so he would not pay the amount and OP2 had to do the service, but no service was done and complainant suffered harassment mentally in heavy summer season.  Hence, filed this complaint and claimed damages for harassment for sum of Rs 50,000/-.

After receiving the notice, OP1/ manufacturer submitted written statement and denied all the allegations put in the complaint. It was stated that the said AC was purchased on 20/07/2009 and had standard warranty of one year from the date of purchase and during warranty tenure, the said AC had no problem and first problem was reported on 03/05/2011 when the said AC was out off warranty, so service engineer charged Rs 500/- as visit charges as per company terms. The complaint was rectified on the same date and complainant was satisfied and had put his signature on the job sheet. It was admitted that sum of Rs 2200/-were charged on 13/06/2014 for filling gas in AC and service charges as fitting internal unit. Thereafter service report was given as cooling was normal and AC was working.

It was also stated that complainant had never took any AMC, so all the services were chargeable. Also there was no complaint lodged after 13/06/2014 and the said Ac had no manufacturing defect and there was no deficiency in their services. Whenever complaint was lodged by complainant, it was attended properly and well in time and problem was rectified by service engineer as all the visits were paid services.

 

Complainant submitted rejoinder and denied all the replies submitted by OP1 and also submitted his evidence on affidavit and affirmed himself on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true and all correct facts had been stated in his complaint.

OP1 submitted their evidences on affidavit through Sh Rajiv Ranjan, Area Service Manager of OP1 and stated on oath that all the facts were rightly denied by them and their product had no manufacturing defect. 

 

Arguments were heard from both the parties at length and order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was admitted by OP1 that the said AC purchased was manufactured by OP1 and services were provided by their authorized service centre as soon as complaint was received as the said AC was out of warranty.   

We have also scrutinized all the evidences of both parties and it was seen that AC was out of warranty. Complainant had not submitted any warranty card or AMC proof from where he could claim that the said AC was ever under warranty and services were free. Complainant had not produced any evidence that the said AC had manufacturing defect and even during the pendency of his complaint before this Forum, no evidence of manufacturing defect was produced. In this case, there was only gas leaking problem which too was out of warranty tenure. Leaking of gas cannot be presumed as manufacturing defect after expiry of warranty tenure and there was no evidence to see that complainant had suffered damages of Rs 50,000/-for non providing services by OP2.    

 

So, we are of the opinion that complainant could not prove the deficiency of services provided by OP2 and AC had any manufacturing defect. Thus, this complaint deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Regulation 20(`1) of the CPR.  

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur,  Member                                                                

                                                   Sukhdev Singh President