Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/121/2023

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manvir Mehla

29 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 121of 2023

                                                          Date of Institution:  06.09.2023

                                                          Date of Decision: 29.03.2024

 

Advocate Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri Raja Ram, R/o Ravidass Nagar, Ward No.13, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri 9728211107.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Voltas Corporate office at 17, N-19, Block A, OKHLA Phase-1 Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110065 through its Authorized Manager.
2. Sahil Voltas Service Centre, Bhiwani, Wadhwa Refrigeration Krishna Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Agent Mob. No.9034063100.
3. Hari Electronics, Mangal Market, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri, through its Proprietor/Agent.

                                                                   …....Opposite Party. 

                                      COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF

                                      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before: -      Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

                  

Present:       Sh. Manveer Mehla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Deepanshu Tuteja, Advocate for OP no.1.

                   Opposite party  no.2&3 exparte vide order dt.15.11.2023.

       

ORDER    

1.           Sanjeev Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) with the averments that the complainant had purchased 185V ZAZAH SPLIT AC VOLTAS vide bill No.CH/23-24/206 dated 05.05.2023 for a sum of Rs.52500/-. Within two months of installation, the problem started arising in the Air Conditioner. The complainant contacted to OP no.3, then he advised to register complaint with company on toll free number. Then he contacted toll free number 9650694555 and told about the problem, on which they assured to solve the problem within 24 hours. After that representative of OP no.1 went to complainant home on 02.09.2023. Looking to the Air Conditioner he said that AC would be changed, then on the next day, the above mentioned representative  viz. Mr.Rahul Verma again came to the house and after checking the AC, said that now seniors from the company would come and to repair the AC and charges would be Rs.2000/- for the visit. It is alleged that on 04.09.2023, Mr.Vijay Kumar, Senior Engineer came and examined the AC. He got all the videos of the AC from the complainant on his mobile and collected Rs. 2000/- for the visit and he left the house. But problem of the AC was not removed. Despite the guarantee, the OPs demanded money for Rs.10,000/- from the complainant to send report to the company through email. On 05.09.2023 again the complainant called the toll free number and informed the Senior Engineer about his problem, on which he spoke to the complainant from his toll free number 01204721950 and assured that AC would be changed in the evening. But AC was not replaced. The complainant contacted OP no.3 from whom AC was purchased who bluntly refused to replace the AC and threatened to go whatever, he likes. Hence, this complaint.
2.           In written statement, OP no.1 mentioned that:-

The answering OP i.e. VOLTAS Ltd. is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated.

At the outset, the answering opposite party denies each and every statement or contention which is inconsistent with, or contrary to, whatever is stated in this written statement. Any statement or contention not specifically denied by the answering opposite party shall not be deemed to have been admitted.

Further OP no.1 has submitted that the complainant has purchased on 03.05.2023 the Air Conditioner from OP no.3.After use of the AC for whole summer season i.e. after approximate 4 months, the complainant for the first time approachedto the answering company on 01.09.2023 regarding cooling problem. The engineer visited the premisesof complainant vide complaint no.2309104648 and it is checkedand found that the super dry function mode of the AC is on and due to same only the cooling mode is changed. The engineer changed the super dry mode to cooling mode and the AC start working smoothly.

The complainant again requested to check the unit and 2^nd visit was done by the engineer and again no defect was found and the cooling parameters of the unit was found absolutely working normal. The engineer appraised and informed complainant that there is no defect in the unit and same was working properly but the complainant did not listen to the genuine approach of the answering company and without any rhyme and reason, started demanding refund of the AC. It was submitted that the unit in question was having no defect and working properly but the complainant without any reason, escalated the matter and just only to satisfy the ego and just for goodwill gesture, the OP no.1 offered replacement of the unit, but the complainant became adamant for refund and compensation.The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the OP no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua OP no.1.

3.  

4.                To prove its complaint, complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A and document Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt. 10.01.2024

5.                Counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt. 10.01.2024

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

7.                In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had purchased Air Conditioner from OP no.3 for Rs.52,500/- (i.e. Rs. 37,500/- towards one unit of split AC VOLTAS, Rs. 3813.56/- towards one unit  Stabilizer STAB 4KV 130 to 280 AL and Rs.11,186.44 towards GST  vide bill Ex.C10.  Even OP no.1 in his written statement has admitted this fact.  As per the complainant, since the very beginning, Air Conditioner was not working properly and there was no proper cooling.

8.                The contention of OP no.1 was that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive and malafide intention to get sale price back in cash and cause harassment, while there was no shortcoming or manufacturing defect in the goods supplied by OPs. The technicians had done several visits to satisfy the customer as general policy even though there was no shortcoming  and manufacturing defect in the product of the company. It was denied that AC in question was not functional. But this contention of learned counsel for OP no.1 cannot be admitted as true because if there was no defect in the AC in question, the complainant would have not file the present complaint by spending huge money and by hiring an advocate. It is not disputed that the AC in dispute started giving problem within warranty period. In this regard Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited has held that 11(2014) CPJ Page17 failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defect.

                   We are  of the considered view that when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning and complainant is no satisfied  with service provided by the OPs,  it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied  the consumer because the consumer  had lost faith in that companys product and if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another battle  of litigation which will be highly torturous.

9.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances  of the complaint and the evidence brought on record by both the parties, the complaint is allowed

 

 

and the opposite parties are directed as under:-

1. OP no.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.37,500/ to the complainant for the cost of defective Air Conditioner and OP no.1 to   collect the defective AC from the complainant.
2. OP no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,500/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and hardship.
3. OP no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,500/- for litigation expenses.
4.  OP no.3 is directed to pay cost of stabilizer for Rs. 3,813.56 (rounded of 3814/-) and OP no.3 to collect the stabilizer from the complainant.

Complainant is directed to handover the AC to OP no.1 and stabilizer to OP no.3.

10.               Compliance of the order shall be made by the OP no.1 within 45 days from the date of receiving of its certified copies, failing which the amounts at Sr. No. (i) shall carry interest @ 9%  per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  The copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.