Delhi

East Delhi

CC/320/2016

SANJAY GAEG - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  320/16

 

Sh. Sanjay Garg

A1/203 New Kondly

Delhi-110096

…Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Voltas Ltd. 2^nd floor, Voltas House,

B-Block, Chinch Pokli T.B. Kadam Collon Green Mumbai

Mumbai City District, Maharastra- 400033

 

2. Super Breeze Regd.

A-909, Main Road,

Budha Marg Mandawali,

East Delhi- 110092

…Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 23.03.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 21.01.2019

Judgement Pronouced on : 25.01.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Judgement

This complaint pertains to the allegation of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice against Voltas Ltd. (OP-1) and Super Breeze Registered (OP-2), by the complainant, Shri. Sanjay Garg.

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Voltas water cooler; Tushar-150 through its dealer M/s Hindustan Refrigeration Company, Daryaganj in the year 2014 for Rs. 40,500/-. It has been stated by the complainant that the compressor of the water Cooler was defective on the date of supply which was replaced. Again, the said Water cooler was not cooling for which complaint was lodged at the customer helpline on 08.04.2016. The said complaint was cancelled by the service centre without any visit. Thereafter, a fresh complaint was registered on 11.04.2016 under complaint No. 16041116666, upon which the representative from OP-2, the authorized service centre visited the site on 14.04.2016, where the complainant was informed that there was defect due to leakage of gas which was refilled and bill No. 1318 for Rs. 2,500/- was issued. The complainant has further stated that as the representative of OP-2 handled the water cooler in a rough manner which resulted in breaking the side steel wall which has been reported in the service report. The complainant has also stated that a written guarantee for three months which was valid till 14.07.2016 was given. On 26.04.2016, there was again problem with the cooling of water, for which complaint was registered and gas was filled on 28.04.2016 by the representative of OP-2. Problem continued to persist on several other occasions i.e. on 16.05.2016 and one of the mechanic of OP-2 opened the water cooler but left the same open and unrepaired and ran away, thereafter, no services were provided by OP-1 and OP-2 despite several complaints.

Written notice dated 20.05.2016 was served upon OP-1 and OP-2 demanding them to remove the defects immediately, which was neither replied nor complied with. The complainant has stated that the said water cooler had been installed as a “Piau” to serve filtered cold water in a labour resettlement colony. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was constrained to purchase a new water cooler for   Rs. 43,000/- vide Bill No. 8933 of dated 21.05.2016.

            Hence, it has been prayed that OPs be directed to replace the water cooler or to pay the cost of the new water cooler i.e. Rs. 43,000/- and damages on account of harassment suffered by the complainant mentally, physically and financially.

            The complainant has annexed the challan for refilling of gas as Annexure P1, service report dated 11.04.2016 as Annexure P2, written notice to OP-1 and OP-2 as Annexure P3, Retail invoice of the new water cooler dated 21.05.2016 as Annexure P4 with the complaint.

2.         Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as; the product in question was being used for commercial purpose and was working “OK” as per the last report and verification. It was submitted by OP-1 that as per the job sheet relied upon by the complainant the product was out of warranty in April, 2016 and the complainant had not placed the purchase invoice on record. It was further submitted that the averment of the complainant regarding the purchase of new water cooler was false, as the complainant had purchased the new water cooler to be used in another department store owned by him.  It was also submitted that the OP was willing to send their service engineer for repairs on chargeable basis, as the unit in question was out of warranty. Rest of the content of the complaint have been denied, thereby, seeking dismissal of complaint being frivolous on the grounds that the compliant of complainant was addressed as and when it was registered. Therefore, no deficiency could be attributed on their part.

They have annexed the print out of the website of the complainant as Annexure 1 (Colly.)

            Reply was also filed by OP-2, where they have stated that the complainant was not a consumer qua them. It was submitted that the mechanic had suggested the complainant to get the product in question repaired thoroughly, which was denied by the complainant as the cost of the repair was higher. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied by them.

3.         Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, Shri Sanjay Garg where he has deposed the contents of his complaint on oath and has placed reliance on Annexure P1 to Annexure P5 annexed with the complaint.

            OP-1 have got examined, Shri Ashok Yadav, Branch Service Manager on their behalf who have also reiterated the contents of their reply on affidavit.

            OP-2 did not file evidence by way of affidavit despite several opportunities and ultimately stopped appearing, hence, their right to file evidence was closed.

4.         We have heard the submission on behalf of Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and as the complainant did not appear to argue and had not been appearing on past two dates, we have  also perused the material placed on record. The grievance of the complainant is that his complaint was not addressed by the OPs as and when registered and when the services were provided by OP-2, the authorized service centre they were not satisfactory. In support of his allegation he has annexed this service report dated 11.04.2016 where in the comment section he has written about the breakage done by the mechanic of OP-2 and bears the signature of the complainant of date 14.04.2016. On the other hand OP-1 has placed no document on record to rebut the allegations of the complainant that the services were provided to the complainant as and when he got his complaint registered. Further, if we look at the same service report annexed at Annexure P2, it bears the name of Super Breeze Regd. as Voltas authorized service partner i.e. OP-2. Therefore, the defence taken by OP-2 that the complainant was not a consumer qua them falls flat.

            Therefore, from the above discussion we hold OP-1 and OP-2 deficient in providing after sale services. The complainant was entitled to get the services even though the product was out of warranty the OP was bound to provide the service after charging for the same. The complainant has not placed the invoice on record to prove the cost of the water cooler, therefore, no direction as to the refund of the cost of the water cooler can we ordered. Hence, we direct OP-1 and OP-2 to jointly and severally pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.  This shall be inclusive of litigation expenses.

            The order be complied within a period of 30 days else, the compensation awarded shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                    (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)     Member                                                           Member

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President