MANMOAHAN filed a consumer case on 25 May 2018 against VOLTAS in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/306/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jun 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no 306 / 2015
Date of Institution 29/04/2015
Order Reserved on 25/05/2018
Date of Order 28/05/2018
In matter of
Mr. Manmohan Sharma, adult
R/o- 1/10772, Subhash Park, Street No. 2
Naveen Shahdara, Delhi 110032……………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s Voltas Ltd.
Delhi office- 1st Floor, A-47,
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 ………...………………………Opponent
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, Mr Manmohan Sharma purchased Voltas Window AC, 1 Ton 123 Px SN 4011088A13f002616 FROM m/S Gupta Electronics for a sum of Rs 19600/- vide invoice no. 2792 on 06/03/2014 (Ex CW1/1) with one year product warranty and 5 year compressor warranty (Ex CW1/2).
The said AC was fitted by the company service man and took first free service in Aug. 2014 without problem. The 2nd free service was taken on 28/02/2015 through complaint no. 15022800445. It was told by the service man that the chassis of AC and drain pipe was broken and after service, the swing were not working so complaint was lodged to OP on 02/03/2015 for replacement of the product, but did not get any response so again contacted OP’s higher officials and it was assured for replacing the chassis of the AC as soon as it was available with OP. Till 08/04/2015, neither part was replaced nor another free service was done despite of repeated reminders. So, sent notice to OP on 10/04/2015 (Ex CW1/5) for replacing the AC or refund of the cost of the product with compensation. When no reply was received, filed this complaint claiming replacement of AC of cost Rs 19,600/-with compensation of Rs 30,000/-.
Notices were served. OP submitted their written statement and denied all the allegations of complainant about defective product and replacement of AC. It was admitted that the chassis had minor crack which had nothing to do with the functioning of AC still OP called several times complainant for replacement of chassis as the same part was not available when OP received complaint under warranty. It was also stated that the service man visited house of complainant for replacement of chassis (Ex OPW1/1), but was refused by the complainant and insisted for replacement of AC which was running well till filing of the complaint.
It was stated that the product was running well since its installation and had received any complaint about nonfunctioning of the product. As there was no manufacturing defect found, so there was no need to replace the entire product and there was no deficiency in their services given, hence this complaint to be dismissed by the Forum.
Complainant submitted his rejoinder and denied all replies given in written statement. He stated that all the facts and contents were correct and true. He also filed evidences on affidavit through himself and reaffirmed on oath that it was noticed by the complainant that the chassis was broken when OP’s services man visited on second free service. It was also correct that OP failed to provide other free services to the complainant.
OP also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Sh Sumit Singh, Branch Service Manager of OP and stated on oath that all the facts were rightly denied by them and their product had no manufacturing defect. As complainant had two another option to receive the free services, but OP did not receive any call to take free services. It was also submitted that OP were ready to replace the chassis though it (chassis) had no role in cooling process and also there was no evidence on record that the product/AC had any manufacturing defect. Hence this misconceived complaint may be dismissed.
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 OP that the said AC was manufactured by OP and two free services were provided by their authorized serviceman under warranty tenure, but complainant had refused to get replaced the chassis, but insisted for replacement of said AC, but did not produce any evidence that the said AC had manufacturing defect or cooling was not due to the chassis even during the pendency of his complaint or till the date of argument.
Hence we are of the opinion that this complaint has some merits and so we pass the following order-
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations,2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.
(Dr) P N Tiwari Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.