Delhi

East Delhi

CC/507/2014

R.C VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-507/14

In the matter of:

Sh. R.C. Verma,

SC- 230 A, Shastri Nagar

Ghaziabad  

          Complainant

 

Vs

 

M/S Voltas Limited

At.

1. Voltas House ‘A’, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road

Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033

 

2. Through M/s, Navrang Audio & Video

D-10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

                                                                                                                    Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                        DATE OF ADMISSION-03/01/2014

                                                                                      DATE OF ORDER         -23/12/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint  has been filed with the allegation that on 24/05/2009 Air-conditioner carrying 5 year warranty was purchased from the respondent for a sum of Rs.24,000/-. Numerous complaints were made regarding the complaint in the Air conditioner. It finally stopped working in May 2014and complaint No.14051000337 was allotted on 10/05/2014, another complaint was lodged on 15/05/2014. None of these complaints were attended. Due to sweltering heat the complainant is suffering. The product is defective from the very beginning. Complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs. 24,000/- with 24% interest p.a. and Rs.11,000/- as compensation and etc.

            Respondent in their reply stating that as a good gesture they have sent their technician to the house of the complainant for inspection of the unit but the complainant refused for inspection. The product is out of warranty, it has only one year warranty. The product was purchased from Ghaziabad hence there is no territorial jurisdiction available to this Forum. The problem is the outcome of normal wear and tear. Rests of the allegations have been denied.

            Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

            It has been contended by the complainant counsel that it is true that the product has been purchased from Ghaziabad but the service center which is responsible for the repair of this product is located within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Laxmi Nagar Delhi. This fact has not been disputed that the office of the Respondent No.1 is also located in Delhi, as such the complaint can be filed against the respondent No.1 at Delhi. The service report which has been filed on record by the respondent No.1 shows that the respondent No.1 representative has gone at the place of the complainant to carry out the repairs as such this cannot be said that the complaint cannot be filed at Delhi. The second question which has been raised with regard to product being out of warranty. This has not been denied that the compressor of the Air conditioner does carry the warranty of five years, secondly if the problem has arising just after the purchase and within the warranty period as it is evident from the document dated 21/08/2013 that the Air conditioner in question was having the problem with the capacitor and thereafter on 29/08/2013 with the PCB. On 02/05/2013 subsequent dated in which several complaint was made to which the number has been given and the same has not been denied by the respondent specifically in the written statement and on oath. During the pendency of this complaint the respondent attended the Air conditioner on 05/05/2015 and charged from the complainant a sum of Rs.10,600/-. The compressor of the Air conditioner was changed after charging Rs.8,300/-. It is argued by the complainant that he has been making complaint regarding the defects in the Air conditioner right from the very beginning as such the cause of action shall be deemed to be continued from the warranty period to the date of filing this complaint. In view of the non denial by the respondent it shall be taken that the product was defective right after the installation at the place of the complainant. The charging of the amount during the pendency of this complaint by the respondent is also unfair trade practice.

            We allow this complaint. The respondent is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.24,000/- the cost of this Air conditioner together with Rs.10,600/- which has been charged during the pendency of this complaint. We further award compensation of Rs.10,000/- which shall also include the cost of litigation. Let all the amount be paid within 45 days from the date of this order. The complainant shall handover the Air conditioner to the respondent on receiving the amount.     

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                        POONAM MALHOTRA                     N.A.ZAIDI

      MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT