Delhi

East Delhi

CC/338/2018

RANJAN CHAWLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 338/18

 

Ranjan Chawla,

S/O B-14 Second Floor,

R/O East Krishna Nagar

Delhi- 110051

•  

Vs

1. Voltas Ltd.

•  

A-43, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi- 110044

 

2. Coollite Refrigeration

12.36, Geeta Colony,

Delhi- 110031

                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 26.10.2018

Judgment Reserved for: 07.11.2019

Judgment Passed on: 14.11.2019

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                           (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Ranjan Chawla, the complainant, against the Voltas Ltd. (OP-1), the manufacturer and Coollite Refrigeration, (OP-2), the service centre.

Facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that the complainant had purchased one Voltas Air Conditioner, 1.5 Ton on 16.05.2017, which was found to be defective within few months of its purchase. There was problem with respect to the cooling, due to gas leakage, for which OPs were informed. It has been stated that OPs were unable to rectify the problem and provide services. The Air Conditioner was taken to the service centre i.e. OP-2, six times within a span of 4 months from April, 2018 to August, 2018, the problem could not be resolved. The complainant has further stated that the failure on the part of OPs to remove/ rectify the defect in the Air Conditioner amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

Despite, several complaints OP-1 and OP-2 failed to replace the defective Air Conditioner. Hence, the present complaint with prayer for direction to OPs to pay cost of the product i.e. Rs. 28,290/-; compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

The complainant has annexed the notice dated 12.10.2018, invoice dated 16.05.2017, challan issued by OP-2 dated 27.04.2018, request for replacement of Air Conditioner through emails from 28.04.2018 to 06.10.2018 and SMS receipt from OP, with his complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs.

OP-1 did not appear despite service and the process issued to OP-2 was received back with the report “refused”, since, they had refused to accept notice, they were deemed to be served. Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte as they chose not to appear or file their written statement.

Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of complainant, where he has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint. He has stated that his request for replacement was declined by OP. He has also deposed that the Air Conditioner was taken to service centre for 6 times in a span of 4 months.

We have heard the submissions made by the authorized representative of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The said Air Conditioner was purchased on 16.05.2017 and the job sheet/ challan is dated 27.04.2018. The said job sheet bears the complaint reported as “window AC gas leak lift for workshop”. The Air Conditioner is stated to be in warranty.

Further in support of his case the complainant had relied on the emails exchanged with OP-1. Bare reading of email dated 11.08.2018, where the complainant has stated that the problem had occurred again and it was the 6^th time he was facing the issue with new Air Conditioner and had sought replacement. Thus, it is clear that there was problem with the functioning of the Air Conditioner time and again and OPs had failed to rectify the same. Since, OPs are ex-parte, the averments made by the complainant have remained unrebutted. 

From above discussion, we are able to cull that if the Air Conditioner is  sent for repairs for 6 times in a span of 4 months, then there is definitely some defect in it. Failure on part of OPs to rectify the defect and replace the product, amounts to deficiency in services.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct OP-1 and OP-2 to refund Rs. 28,290/- i.e the cost of the Air Conditioner. The complainant is further entitled to compensation of                       Rs. 7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, else the amount awarded of Rs. 35,790/- shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr.P.N.TIWARI)                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                                     MEMBER                                                     MEMBER   

 

                     (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                           PRESIDENT