Sir, I was one among the cheated by your sales man sakthivel, Madurai, 162,
south masi street. Please help me. I bought a Voltas AC. I was about to
order 3, when we got the 1st one. The gas leakage problem was not fixed in
time and I worried about the service quality so I switched to Carrier 1.5ton
Split AC. I went to shop to pay the remaining amount and get the bill. But
the sales man replied that stock was not available and asked me to come by
monday. when I went on monday(04/may/2009) he said free installation offer
is not available after 30th april and asked me to pay extra 1400Rs which I
rejected and asked him to cancel the bill or provide the installation free
as he committed. Now I request you to help me to resolve this.

A service request was made vide request no. 09AP120354 dated 11-04-2009 for servicing of AC before start of season. Voltas deputed Mr. Raj Kumar from Madhu Cool Centre, Noida, their authorised rep. to service the AC. Mr. Raj Kumar inspected the AC and told us that the gas needs to be charged. This was done a few days later and charged Rs.1800.00. However, there was no cooling even after that and the temperature does not fall below 28 degrees even after continuous operation for endless hours. We approached Mr. Raj Kumar. He comes after a lot of calls are made and has a stock reply that the machine is OK. My question is if the machine is OK, why it is not cooling? We then started following up with Voltas. Latest interaction was on 26 June vide complaint no. 09JU233598. Every time we call, next day the message is that the complaint is closed as reported by their technician.
Hefty power and phone bills without any comfort cooling
Immediate restoration of AC to proper working condition. Reimbursement of power bills from the date of complaint to the date of satisfactory performance

Sir,I have purchased a Voltas Vertis Plus split Air Conditioner of 1.5 tonne capacity
from the authorised dealer of voltas M/S Sachdeva sales,Jamshedpur on 2.6.2009.Both packets of indoor & out units were sealed and sticker of QC were fixed.But after few days of commissioning the following defects were found;
1. One pin among the air circulating fins were came out,
2.Air throwing compartment was not setting properly.
3.The left side of the louver is not closing properlyand it looks very odd.

Dear Mr. Bhadra,

Kindly provide us the product and purchase details, to know your complaint better.

I have bought Voltas Split AC in month of March 09. Ever since it was installed in our premises, it has started leaking, almost 4 to 5 times Voltas Service people tried to repair it. Last complaint made in the month of September was attended by a senior level person. He did his part again to repair the Air conditioner, but to no avail. Since then, I have called the company help line three times, but no one is coming up to look at the matter. The company record is also showing the status of complain as pending. I sit under my AC and face droplets falling on my head every often. I want Voltas now to replace my unit as they have not been able to repair my AC unit for almost 9 months now.

Please do the needful at the earliest.
regards.

MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No. 18/2009
Date of filing of the Case: 04.05.2009
Complainant

Opposite Parties

Kabir Hossain

S/o MD. Golam Mortuja

Bakkatuli Lane

P.S. English Bazar,

PO & Dist: Malda

West Bengal


1.


General Manager

VOLTAS

Unitary Products Business Group

Voltas House ‘A’

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,

Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 033.

2.


Proprietor

RAJ ELECTRONICS

82/93, Rabindra Avenue

(Video Game Building)

PS: English Bazar

PO: Malda Dist: Malda

West Bengal



Present:

1.

Smt. Sumana Das, Member

2..
Sri. Krishna Prasad Chatterjee, Member
For the Petitioner : Joy Narayan Chowdhury, Advocate

For the O.Ps.: Sudeb Sarkar, Advocate

Order No. 14 Dt. 13.11.2009


The Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased one Voltas Window A.C. Machine on 01.06.2007 from O.P. No.2 (Proprietor, Raj Electronics, 82/93, Rabindra Avenue ( Video Game Building ) P.S. English Bazar, P.O. Malda, Dist. Malda ) on payment of Rs. 7,500/- and rest of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was due which were paid on 07.06.2009. At the time of purchase O.P. No.2 issued challan instead of cashmemo to the petitioner. O.P. No.-2 at the time of payment of rest amount of Rs. 10,000/- i.e. on 07.06.2009 assured the petitioner that they would arrange for sending money receipt to him within two days. When the petitioner found that the money receipt was not sent to his house, he along with his friend had been to the O.P. No.2’s shop. O.P. No.2 then again assured that money receipt would be issued within a very short period. Further case is that with some ulterior motive O.P. No. 2 did not put signature upon the challan and also in the warranty paper which amounts to unfair trade practice. It is also the case of the petitioner that after a couple of week of purchase the A.C. machine started malfunctioning but even after repeated

Contd….P/2

P-2

request, the O.P. No.2 did not pay any heed for removing the defect of the A.C. machine. On 12.03.2009, the said A.C. Machine stopped functioning totally. The complainant reported the matter to O.P. No. 2, when the O.P. No.2 stated that as some of the relatives of the complainant took T.V. set and did not make full payment they would not provide service to the complainant. Further allegation is that the father of the complainant is a patient, who needs regulated temperature but due to non-service of the A.C. machine the condition of his father is deteriorating. With all the above, the petitioner was obliged to approach the Forum with the prayer as stated in the petition of complaint.



Both the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 have been contesting the case by filing separate written version wherein they denied all material allegations contained in the petition. According to O.P. No.1 they were never intimated about malfunctioning of the A.C. machine. Warranty period already expired. They used to provide free service within five years if any problem crops up due to defect of compressor.



O.P. No. 2’s positive case is that the petitioner agreed to purchase A.C. machine in consideration of Rs. 17,500/- and as he had no ready money he paid only a sum of Rs. 7,500/- for purchase of the said machine with further assurance that rest of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid within seven days, when the warranty card and cashmemo would be issued. A challan dt.01.06.2007 was issued by the O.P. showing Rs. 10,000./- as due on good faith. Due to inadvertence O.P. did not put signature over the challan. The petitioner, after delivery of the said A.C. machine did not pay the due amount of Rs. 10,000/- even after repeated reminder. The petitioner even did not report to the O.P. regarding malfunctioning of A.C. machine either verbally or in writing. The complainant did not pay the due amount of Rs. 10,000/-. In order to save his skin from the liability of making payment of dues the petitioner interpolated the challan by way of inserting Rs.10,000/- showing full payment. The allegation of malfunctioning of A.C. machine is vague and warranty period is already expired. In the above circumstances both the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.



On the basis of pleadings of both the parties following points emerge for consideration and effective discussion:

::POINTS::

1) Whether the petitioner made full payment towards purchase of Voltas A.C. Machine or not ?

2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 2 ?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for ?



Contd…P/3
P-3


::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Point Nos. 1 2 & 3

All the points being interlinked character are taken up together for the sake of brevity and for convenience of consideration.



It is admitted fact that on 01.06.2007 one Voltas Window A.C. Machine was sold to the petitioner by O.P. No.2 ((Proprietor, Raj Electronics, 82/93, Rabindra Avenue ( Video Game Building ) P.S. English Bazar, P.O. Malda, Dist. Malda ). Further admitted position is that the valuation of the said machine is fixed at Rs. 17,500/- and initial payment of Rs. 7,500/- was made leaving a due amount of Rs. 10,000/- and challan was issued to the petitioner by O.P. No.2 on the same date. The above situation will get effective support from the challan which has been marked ( Exbt.-2 ).



An warranty book including free service coupon ( Exbt.-1 )has also been produced by the petitioner before the Forum. We do not find, however, any signature, seal etc. therein which are required under the usual norms. As per warranty among others, the purchaser is entitled to get the benefit of repairs or replacement, free of charge, of any part or parts of the A.C. machine for a period of twelve months from the date of purchase. Again the said A.C. machine is with the purview of five years warranty of compressor.



According to the petitioner after a couple of week of purchase the A.C. machine started malfunctioning, and on repeated request the O.P. No. 2 did not pay any heed to remove the defect of the same and ultimately had stopped functioning totally on 12.03.2009, which the petitioner deposed as PW-1. As PW-1, the petitioner also stated that he reported the matter to the O.P. again and again but O.P. No.2 in reply said that some of his relatives purchased T.V. set from his shop and did not pay full amount. So he refused to provide service to the petitioner.



On the other hand OPW No.2 ( Pradip Bhagat ) has stated in his evidence that the petitioner never met him with the allegation or any complaint of malfunctioning of the said A.C. machine either verbally or in writing.

Contd….P/4



P-4

Admittedly no written document, nor a scrap of paper has been forthcoming before the Forum that the petitioner at any point of time informed O.P. No.2 or O.P. No.1 about the malfunctioning of the A.C. machine or did not make any grievance before them. So the statement of both parties is nothing but oath vs. oath. According to the petitioner his father is a patient who needs regulated temperature, but due to malfunctioning of A.C. machine the condition of his father is deteriorating. In this regard nor his father has been examined, nor any paper showing illness of his father has been produced. In such type of event had the A.C. machine really been defective and when the O.P. did not accede to the verbal request for repair, it is expected that the petitioner will have to put his grievance in writing which has not been done in this case.



Assuming for argument sake it is held that the A.C. machine started malfunctioning and it still continues, in that case it would not be out of place to mention that the petitioner must have to make full payment towards purchase of A.C. machine. The petitioner showing the challan ( Exbt.-2 ) has tried to convince that due amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been already paid, and in this regard he led oral evidence, to which the O.P. also denied by adducing oral evidence. The law in this regard witness may tell lie but the document does not. It is seen from the challan i.e. (Exbt.-2) that there is an insertion of 10,000 below the writing of due amount of Rs. 10,000.00 as if indicating full payment of due amount. It is palpably seen that the digit 10,000 below the due amount Rs. 10,000.00 is completely of different handwriting and of different ink. It is also very much surprising to note that when O.P. No. 2 ( OPW No. 2 ) faced cross-examination the said challan ( Exbt. -2 ) was not confronted to him, lest some fishy smell came out. It is too hard to swallow that even after making such payment of due amount of Rs. 10,000/- the petitioner would not insist the recipient to put his signature or to insert the word like “paid” or so upon the challan ( Exbt.-2 ). Whenever, admittedly the petitioner found that at the time of issuance of challan (Exbt.-2) there was no signature for and on behalf of Raj Electronics. The ld.lawyer for the petitioner urged that the O.P. has failed to table the audited report which is the only document to show no receipt of entire amount. We do not find good wind in the sail of such argument because of aforesaid circumstantial evidence and also for the reason that the audited report always can never be held to be an axiomatic truth. Therefore, in our considered view the petitioner has not been able to prove to the satisfaction of our judicial conscience that full payment of price towards purchase of A.C. machine, for Rs. 17,500/- was made. So the question of issuance of valid warranty does not arise.



In spite of the above situation it is an admitted position that the petitioner

Contd….P/5
P-5

purchased one Window A.C. Machine from the shop of O.P. No. 2 and as he has come before the Forum with the allegation of malfunctioning of the said within two years of purchase we are further of the view that in the event of payment of the due amount of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner, the O.P. No.2, would arrange for sending a mechanic to see the present condition of the A.C. machine installed at the petitioner’s house and if any defect is found the same would be removed/ repaired free of cost, and with the above observation the case deserves to be disposed of.

All the points are thus disposed of.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence, ordered,

that Malda D.F. Case No. 18/2009 be and the same is hereby disposed of on contest

with the following direction.



The petitioner is directed to make payment of due amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards purchase of A.C. machine which is the subject matter of the case within 20 days from the date of this order and in that event the O.P. No.2 shall issue valid receipt / cashmemo to the petitioner.



In the event of such aforesaid payment within the prescribed period, the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally, will arrange for sending skilled mechanic to the house of the petitioner immediately and to observe the condition of the installed machine, and if defect is found the same would be removed / repaired free of cost.

It is, further , ordered that if the said A.C. machine is again found to be defective not due to improper usage, within three months from the date of repair, the O.Ps will again arrange for repair of the A.C. machine at free of cost.

In the facts and circumstances of the case both parties will bear their respective cost.

Complaint No. 188/9.7.2009

Decided on : 27.11.2009.


Sh. Sohan Lal son of Sh. Nand Ram C/o Narsi Ram Prabh Dayal, Commission Agent, Shop No. 168, Grain Market, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant.
VERSUS

1. Voltas Ltd. through G.M./Chairman, Voltas House, A Block, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 044.

2. G.M/Chairman, Unitary Product Business Group, Voltas House, A Block, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 044.

3. M/s Cool India Enterprises, through its proprietor, Gurdwara Chowk, Gaushalla Road, Mansa (Dealer Voltas AC).

..... Opposite Parties..


Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

.....

Present: Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sushil Kumar Singla, Advocate counsel for OP No. 1&2. Sh. Sweet Kumar Singla, Advocate counsel for OP No. 3.

Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President.

Sh. Sarat Chander, Member.

Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member.

ORDER:-


Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President.

1. This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Sohan Lal, son of, Sh. Nand Ram, a resident of Budhlada, under Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against the opposite parties, including Voltas Ltd, Bombay and M/s Cool India Enterprises, Mansa, through its proprietor, for giving them direction, for replacement of compressor or complete air conditioner, purchased by him and for payment

Contd......2....

/ 2 /


of compensation, in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:-

2. That he purchased air conditioner, manufactured by Voltas Company, from OP No. 3, vide Bill No. 3706 dated 11.7.2008, for a consideration of, Rs. 17,200/-. At the time of sale of the air conditioner, the opposite party given guarantee, for a period of 5 years, as such, the complainant is 'consumer' qua the said air conditioner, under all the opposite parties. After purchase of air conditioner, it started creating noise and compressor thereof went down and stopped cooling the air to its potential and capacity. The complainant made complaint, about these defects, to the OP No. 3, in the year 2009, before start of summer season, on Mobile Phone Nos. 94633-73448 and 98151-38405. In response to those complaints, OP No. 3, deputed a mechanic a couple of time, but they could not remove the defect, for which the complainant contacted the service station of opposite parties, at Chandigarh, on his phone No. 0172-2647825. He approached OP No. 1 & 2 by their toll free No. 18004254555 and made complaint No. 09JL032023, but they, have failed to, remove the defect, in the compressor of the air conditioner, purchased by the complainant, as such there is deficiency in service, on their part, on account of which the complainant, has been suffered mental and physical harassment. Hence the complaint.

3. On being, put to notice, the OP No. 1 & 2, filed their written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that there is no deficiency in service, on their part, as such complaint is not maintainable and the complainant, has concealed the material facts, and has not approached this Forum with clean hands, as such, his complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed, with costs. On merits, the

Contd......3....

/ 3 /


factum of purchase of air conditioner by the complainant, from OP No. 3, is admitted, but it is submitted, that the complainant, has failed to comply with the guidelines, issued by the manufacturing company, in the book containing instructions. It is further submitted, that after the complainant lodged the complaint, on toll free number of manufacturer, a qualified official, employed in service centre, was deputed to his premises, on 10,7,2009, who reported, that compressor of his air conditioner, is working properly and there is no defect, but complainant, has ignored guidelines issued by the manufacturing company, about installation thereof and refused to affix his signatures, on job card. It is contended, that there is no defect, in the compressor of the air conditioner, purchased by the complainant. Rest of the averments made, in the complaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint, was made with costs.

4. The OP No. 3 filed, separate written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections, reiterating the arguments made, by OP No. 1 & 2 in their written version. On merits, the factum of sale of air conditioner, vide bill No. 3706 dated 11.7.2008, to the complainant, has been admitted. It is also admitted, that warranty was given, about the functioning of the air conditioner, to the complainant, on behalf of the manufacturing company. It is also stated, that guidelines contained in book of instructions, about installation of air conditioner, are to be complied with, by the purchaser, but the complainant failed to comply with them and has filed a false complaint, by concocting a false version. Although air conditioner, purchased buy him, is perfectly functioning and is providing satisfactory services, as established, by qualified service engineer of manufacturing company, who inspected the same on 10.7.2009. Rest of the averments made, in the complaint were

Contd......4....

/ 4 /


denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint, was made with costs.

5. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant, furnished his affidavits and photo copy of bill Ext. C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh. Kulwant Singh, Area Service Manager, Affidavit of Sh. Joginder Singh and photo copies of documents, Ext. OP-1 to OP-6 and closed their evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.

7. To begin, with learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. V.K. Goel, Advocate, has submitted, that the factum of purchase of air conditioner, by the complainant, manufactured by OP No. 1 & 2, from OP No. 3, and making of complaints, has been admitted, by the opposite parties and reports of their mechanics, tendered in evidence, by them, has come into existence, during the pendency of the complaint, Learned counsel, has also submitted, that there is no evidence, regarding supply of book containing instructions, for installation of the air conditioner, to the complainant, at the time of sale of air conditioner, as such, he cannot be non suited on the basis of guidelines contained therein. Learned counsel, has argued, that as per the report of the mechanic of the opposite parties the complainant, has not affixed his signatures, expressing his satisfaction, about working of compressor of the air conditioner, as such manufacturing defect therein, is duly proved, because of which none of the opposite, can escape from liability, to replace the said part or the air conditioner purchased, by the complainant and to pay him compensation and costs, as demanded, in the complaint.

Contd......5....

/ 5 /


8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No. 1 & 2, Sh. Sushil Kumar Singla, Advocate, has submitted, that the complainant, has not examined, any expert to establish that air conditioner purchased by him bears any defect, whereas the opposite parties, have tendered in evidence, reports of mechanic of their service centre, who visited his premises on the basis of his complaint. Learned counsel, has submitted, that as per the report of the mechanic and manager of service centre of the opposite parties, there is no defect, in the air conditioner purchased, by the complainant, who has refused to, affix his signatures, on the job card, after expressing his satisfaction. Learned counsel, has urged, that proper cooling is not done, by the air conditioner, purchased by the complainant, because of his failure, to comply with the guidelines issued, by the manufacturing company, for installation thereof, in customers' book, as such complainant cannot be granted benefit of his own omission and his complaint, deserves to be dismissed, with special costs.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the OP No. 3. Sh. Sweet Kumar Singla, Advocate, has argued, that initial onus was upon the complainant, to prove any defect, in the compressor of the air conditioner, purchased by him, by producing cogent and convincing evidence, but he has failed to discharge the said onus, as such, he cannot succeed on the basis of any weakness, in the case of the opponent or on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

10. As per admitted facts, the complainant, has purchased air conditioner, from OP No. 3, vide bill No. 3706 dated 11.7.2008, Ext. C-3, for a consideration, of Rs. 17200/-. It is also not disputed, that air conditioner, has been sold, by OP No. 3, to the complainant, as dealer of remaining opposite parties, who are manufacturers thereof. The

Contd.....6....

/ 6 /


complainant, has reiterated the averments made in the complaint, on solemnly affirmation, and allegations regarding defect in compressor of air conditioner, purchased by him, in his affidavit, Ext. C-2. The opposite parties, have tendered in evidence, the copy of report of incharge of their service centre, dated 10.7.2009, Ext. OP-2 to the effect, that there is no defect, in the compressor of air conditioner, purchased by the complainant, which was checked, at the time when the temperature in the area was 32 C and after operation thereof, for one and half hours, temperature inside the room, wherein it was installed, fell to 23 C, as such, it is perfectly alright, but the complainant refused to affix his signatures, on job card, after expressing his satisfaction, on the pretext that signatures can be affixed only, by his son. However, in this report time of visit and name of the mechanic, who inspected the same are not found mentioned. The opposite parties, have also not brought on record, affidavit of person, who has issued the said document and of the mechanic, who inspected the air conditioner and measured the temperature of atmosphere, at the time of checking. However, the opposite parties, have tendered, report of Sh. Gopal Singh, mechanic, employed in service centre, Ext. OP-3, wherein he has stated, that he checked the air conditioner, installed in the premises of the complainant, on 15.7.2009, in the presence of OP No. 3 and found the same to be functioning properly. He has further stated, that he asked the complainant, to affix the air conditioner, at the height of 8 feet, from ground level, for securing proper cooling, but he had been misled, by some other mechanic, that there is no defect, in the compressor and refused to affix his signatures, on job card, stating that signatures may be done, by his son. The contents of the report, are corroborated, by affidavit Ext. OP-5 of Sh. Gopal Singh, mechanic. Even this mechanic, has not disclosed

Contd......7....

/ 7 /


the time of his visit, to the premises of the complainant and opposite parties, have failed to, tender the job card, prepared about his visit and checking of air conditioner. In his affidavit Ext. OP-6, Sh. Amrit Paul, has not stated, that he was present, at the time of installation of air conditioner in the premises of the complainant, by Sh. Gopal Singh mechanic. Both these reports, have come into existence, during the pendency of complaint, which have been filed, on 9.7.2009. As such, much reliance cannot be attached to them, for adjudication of the controversy, therefore, report of even Sh. Gopal Singh mechanic of service centre of the opposite parties, does not inspire much confidence.

11. The opposite parties, have produced on record, instructions issued, for installation of the air conditioner, by the manufacturing company, Ext. OP-4, but there is nothing on record, that they were also supplied, to the complainant or that he was conversant with them. The factum of filing of the complaints, by the complainant, about defect in his air conditioner, purchased by him is admitted, by the opposite parties, in copy of service report Ext. OP-2 and copy of report of mechanic Ext. OP-3. As per the contents of copy of service report, Ext. OP-2, the air conditioner purchased, by the complainant, reduced the temperature in the room, where it is installed, from 32 C to 23 C, after working, for a period of one and half hour. As per the report of the officer incharge, service centre and mechanic of opposite parties, the complainant, has refused to affix his signatures, regarding his satisfaction. Had the guidelines, been not complied with, by the complainant then incharge of service centre in his report Ext. OP-2 should, have been mentioned, the said fact on the basis of the report of his mechanic. As such, their plea, that the air conditioner purchased, by the complainant, is not cooling properly, due

Contd......8....

/ 8 /


to non compliance of guidelines for installation of Air Conditioner is not sustainable and affidavit of the complainant cannot be rejected, on the basis of evidence, adduced on record, by the opposite parties.

12. The complainant, as stated in the earlier part of the order, that he purchased the air conditioner, on 11.7.2008 and he has approached this Forum, within the period of one year, reporting defect in his air conditioner, from the date of purchase. In case there is no defect then he need not to file the complaint, against the opposite party and to waste his energy and money. As such, the non examination of any expert, by him cannot be made the basis, for distrusting his version.

13. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion, that complainant remained successful, in establishing, that there is defect, in the compressor of the Air Conditioner, purchased by him, because of which it is not cooling the air. The compressor, is a sensitive part of the Air Conditioner. Unless it is replaced, it may not work to the satisfaction of user. Since there is manufacturing defect, in the compressor and it has been detected, during the warranty period, therefore, manufacturing company, have no escape, but to replace the said article and to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. However, OP No. 3, who has sold the air conditioner, to the complainant, in the capacity of dealer of the company, has not accrued, any personal liability, for which, he can be burdened, for the act of principal.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint, against the Opposite Party No.3, but accept the same against the Opposite Party No.1 & 2, with the direction, that the compressor of air conditioner purchased, by the complainant be replaced and he be paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, on account of compensation, for mental and physical

Contd......9....

/ 9 /


harassment and a sum of Rs.1000/-, as costs of filing of the instant complaint. The compliance of this order, be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

15. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.

Consumer Case No. 86 /2008

Between

Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, s/o.Satyanarayana

Murthy, age 40 years, Ward-1, Kothuru,

Ramachandrapuram Municipality … Complainant.

And

1) M/s. Aditya Refrigeration Agencies,

Sree Complex, Subhash Road, Kakinada.

2) M/s. Voltas Limited, Voltas House,

A. Block, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road,

Chinchpokli, Mumbai.



3) M/s. Voltas Limited, Voltas House,

87/D, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. … Opposite parties





This case coming on 8-12-2009 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri R.V.G. Subba Rao, Bh.V. Rama Sarma, advocates for the complainant and Sri B. Gokula Krishna, Ch.N.V.S. Srinivas, advocates for the opposite parties 1 to 3, and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R



(By Smt M. Parameswari, Member on behalf of the Bench)



This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for a direction either to replace split A.C. machine or to refund its value together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase and for costs.



2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The 1st opposite party is a manufacturer of Air conditioners. The 2nd opposite party is its branch office at Secunderabad. The 3rd opposite party is the dealer of Air conditioners of 1st and 2nd opposite parties at Kakinada. On 17-5-2007, the complainant purchased one and half tonne wall mounting type split A.C. for Rs.26,000/- with one year warranty. From the beginning of installation, the A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions. He complained the same to the 1st opposite party. The Technician by name Satish came on 27-4-2008 and he was also noticed that the said A.C. machine is not functioning properly and the company remote and one P.C.B. are not working and the outer case of the machine was broken and it was affixed with alloy rod. The complainant came to know through Satish that the 1st opposite party resorted to unfair trade practice as to delivering a defective machine under the grab of a brand new one company make product. He reported the same to the state executive of Voltas company and his service Engineer got repaired the machine and replace the remote. But the A.C. machine was not functioning properly after repairs were done. He made a report to the 1st opposite party who did send the service man on 27-4-2008. His service report revealed that there was problem with Air filter and that the company remote was not functioning. Since there was no improvement, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 22-5-2008 requesting them to replace the defective A.C. machine. The 1st opposite party deputed a service man who informed that P.C.B. Board requires replacement along with remote and got repaired. But due to power failure, the complainant could not check the proper functioning of the A.C. machine and could not know whether defect was rectified or not to report the same on the service note. After few hours, it was found that A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions after repairs were done. The complainant again got issued another legal notice dated 28-5-2008 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the defective machine. Hence, this complaint.



3. The averments in the counter of the 1st opposite party are to the following effect:- the allegations that the machine sold is defective, by representing facts it was wantonly sold etc. are all false. It is submitted that even a stabilizer attached to Air conditioners, will protect voltage fluctuations up to 50% only and in case of high fluctuations, the stabilizer will not support and in such conditions of the machine is used, the P.C.B. will spoil, consequently the functioning of the remote will fail and without noticing the same if any one mishandle the remote the same will spoil. The complainant without observing the same used the machine and mishandled the remote as result the inner parts of the remote were damaged. Even though there was no manufacturing defect in the machine to maintain good relation and reputation of the company, the P.C.B. unit and remote were changed. The Technicians visited in the month of April 2008 found that there was no manufacturing defect in the machine. The opposite party attended all the complaints with due diligence and care. In fact any technician visited has to be paid for visits made out of local limits of 1st opposite party. The complainant’s residence is out of the local limits of the 1st opposite party and the complainant never paid single paise to the staff visited. Even after receipt of the notice dated 22-5-2008, the 1st opposite party sent his technicians who found that there was not defect in the machine. On 26-5-2008 also the complainant retained the Technician for 4 hours saying that the cooling effect had to be observed and after satisfying only he would sign. Even after that and though the cooling effect was good and the machine was in proper condition still the complainant had not signed on the service report saying that he would give satisfaction letter, after one week observation. As the machine was in good working condition, the question of replacement or repayment does not arise. For the notice dated 28-5-2008, a letter was addressed by the 1st opposite party on behalf of other opposite parties also on their request with true and correct facts and the complainant purposefully suppressed the same. There was no cause of action and the alleged cause of action was false. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The 1st opposite party requested for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.



4. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed a memo adopting the counter of the 1st opposite party.



5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, his affidavit has been filed and Exs.A1 to A10 have been got marked. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the opposite parties.

6. In view of the pleadings and in the light of arguments addressed by both sides’ advocates, the following points arise for consideration:-

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the

opposite parties 1 to 3?



2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the directions sought for?



3) To what relief?



7. Point No.1:- Ex.A1 is the original cash bill No.861 dated 17-5-2007 for Rs.26,000/- issued by the 1st opposite party for 1.5 tonne split wall-mounting type Air conditioner. Ex.A2 is original warranty card given by the 1st opposite party. As per Ex.A2, the company warrants that repairs or replacement free of charge of any part or parts of the air conditioner for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase when we identify the defects as due to faulty material or workmanship and not due to improper usage, or faulty electric supply connection. The purchase of the A.C. machine is admitted. The A.C. machine was purchased on 17-5-2007. It was alleged in the complaint that from the date of installation the A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions and not functioning properly. We could not believe that the A.C. machine was not functioning properly from the date of purchase because the complainant had not filed any documents to prove that the defects in the A.C. machine were persisting from the date of purchase. Moreover the complainant did not state specifically the date in his complaint when he made a report to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A3 is the service report issued by the service man of the 1st opposite party. It shows that the service engineer Satish attended the complaint and recorded that Air filter was cleaning and remote was not functioning. Hence we can safely believe that the problem in the A.C. machine has arisen after a period of 11 months from the date of purchase. Even in the service report it was not mentioned about the complaint made by the complainant that the A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions. Ex.A4 is another service report dated 26-5-2008 issued by the 1st opposite party. It shows that service engineer attended the complaint and recorded that new P.C.B. Board and remote were replaced and the unit was in good working condition and was found O.K. In this service report also it was not stated about sound problem. The replaced P.C.B. Board and remote were exempted from warranty period as one year already elapsed by 26-5-2008. Though the opposite party shall not be liable to replace the parts after the warranty, they did the same to maintain the good relation with the customer. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice issued on 22-5-2008 by the complainant to the opposite parties No.1 to 3. It was received by the opposite parties. Ex.A6 is their acknowledgements. Ex.A7 is the postal receipts for notice dated 22-5-2008. Ex.A8 is the another legal notice dated 28-5-2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 to 3. Ex.A9 is their acknowledgements and Ex.A10 is the postal receipts for notice dated 28-5-2008.

It is not the case of the complainant that the servicemen of the 2nd opposite party had not attended the problem whenever he made a complaint they attended the complaint. Therefore, we find on point No.1 that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.



8. Point No.2:- The complainant has claimed for the replacement of A.C. machine. The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the A.C. machine is in working condition and hence the question of replacement of A.C. machine does not arise. It is by now settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if it can be repaired. Without proving any manufacturing defect , the complainant cannot claim replacement of the A.C. machine. The complainant was unable to satisfy us about the factum of manufacturing defect. He had not filed any report of the Technical expert stating that he A.C. machine is having any manufacturing defect and even after repairs, the A.C. machine cannot be made workable. When a part or component could be replaced and defect could be rectified replacement cannot be ordered. For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the problem complained by the complainant was rectified by the servicemen of the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, we find that the complainant is not entitled for the directions as prayed for. This is not a proper case to order replacement of A.C. machine or for direction for refund of amount of Rs.26,000/-. Consumer Case No. 86 /2008

Between



Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, s/o.Satyanarayana

Murthy, age 40 years, Ward-1, Kothuru,

Ramachandrapuram Municipality … Complainant.



And



1) M/s. Aditya Refrigeration Agencies,

Sree Complex, Subhash Road, Kakinada.



2) M/s. Voltas Limited, Voltas House,

A. Block, Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road,

Chinchpokli, Mumbai.



3) M/s. Voltas Limited, Voltas House,

87/D, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. … Opposite parties





This case coming on 8-12-2009 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri R.V.G. Subba Rao, Bh.V. Rama Sarma, advocates for the complainant and Sri B. Gokula Krishna, Ch.N.V.S. Srinivas, advocates for the opposite parties 1 to 3, and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R



(By Smt M. Parameswari, Member on behalf of the Bench)



This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for a direction either to replace split A.C. machine or to refund its value together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase and for costs.



2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The 1st opposite party is a manufacturer of Air conditioners. The 2nd opposite party is its branch office at Secunderabad. The 3rd opposite party is the dealer of Air conditioners of 1st and 2nd opposite parties at Kakinada. On 17-5-2007, the complainant purchased one and half tonne wall mounting type split A.C. for Rs.26,000/- with one year warranty. From the beginning of installation, the A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions. He complained the same to the 1st opposite party. The Technician by name Satish came on 27-4-2008 and he was also noticed that the said A.C. machine is not functioning properly and the company remote and one P.C.B. are not working and the outer case of the machine was broken and it was affixed with alloy rod. The complainant came to know through Satish that the 1st opposite party resorted to unfair trade practice as to delivering a defective machine under the grab of a brand new one company make product. He reported the same to the state executive of Voltas company and his service Engineer got repaired the machine and replace the remote. But the A.C. machine was not functioning properly after repairs were done. He made a report to the 1st opposite party who did send the service man on 27-4-2008. His service report revealed that there was problem with Air filter and that the company remote was not functioning. Since there was no improvement, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 22-5-2008 requesting them to replace the defective A.C. machine. The 1st opposite party deputed a service man who informed that P.C.B. Board requires replacement along with remote and got repaired. But due to power failure, the complainant could not check the proper functioning of the A.C. machine and could not know whether defect was rectified or not to report the same on the service note. After few hours, it was found that A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions after repairs were done. The complainant again got issued another legal notice dated 28-5-2008 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the defective machine. Hence, this complaint.



3. The averments in the counter of the 1st opposite party are to the following effect:- the allegations that the machine sold is defective, by representing facts it was wantonly sold etc. are all false. It is submitted that even a stabilizer attached to Air conditioners, will protect voltage fluctuations up to 50% only and in case of high fluctuations, the stabilizer will not support and in such conditions of the machine is used, the P.C.B. will spoil, consequently the functioning of the remote will fail and without noticing the same if any one mishandle the remote the same will spoil. The complainant without observing the same used the machine and mishandled the remote as result the inner parts of the remote were damaged. Even though there was no manufacturing defect in the machine to maintain good relation and reputation of the company, the P.C.B. unit and remote were changed. The Technicians visited in the month of April 2008 found that there was no manufacturing defect in the machine. The opposite party attended all the complaints with due diligence and care. In fact any technician visited has to be paid for visits made out of local limits of 1st opposite party. The complainant’s residence is out of the local limits of the 1st opposite party and the complainant never paid single paise to the staff visited. Even after receipt of the notice dated 22-5-2008, the 1st opposite party sent his technicians who found that there was not defect in the machine. On 26-5-2008 also the complainant retained the Technician for 4 hours saying that the cooling effect had to be observed and after satisfying only he would sign. Even after that and though the cooling effect was good and the machine was in proper condition still the complainant had not signed on the service report saying that he would give satisfaction letter, after one week observation. As the machine was in good working condition, the question of replacement or repayment does not arise. For the notice dated 28-5-2008, a letter was addressed by the 1st opposite party on behalf of other opposite parties also on their request with true and correct facts and the complainant purposefully suppressed the same. There was no cause of action and the alleged cause of action was false. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The 1st opposite party requested for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.



4. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed a memo adopting the counter of the 1st opposite party.



5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, his affidavit has been filed and Exs.A1 to A10 have been got marked. No documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the opposite parties.

6. In view of the pleadings and in the light of arguments addressed by both sides’ advocates, the following points arise for consideration:-

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the

opposite parties 1 to 3?



2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the directions sought for?



3) To what relief?



7. Point No.1:- Ex.A1 is the original cash bill No.861 dated 17-5-2007 for Rs.26,000/- issued by the 1st opposite party for 1.5 tonne split wall-mounting type Air conditioner. Ex.A2 is original warranty card given by the 1st opposite party. As per Ex.A2, the company warrants that repairs or replacement free of charge of any part or parts of the air conditioner for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase when we identify the defects as due to faulty material or workmanship and not due to improper usage, or faulty electric supply connection. The purchase of the A.C. machine is admitted. The A.C. machine was purchased on 17-5-2007. It was alleged in the complaint that from the date of installation the A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions and not functioning properly. We could not believe that the A.C. machine was not functioning properly from the date of purchase because the complainant had not filed any documents to prove that the defects in the A.C. machine were persisting from the date of purchase. Moreover the complainant did not state specifically the date in his complaint when he made a report to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A3 is the service report issued by the service man of the 1st opposite party. It shows that the service engineer Satish attended the complaint and recorded that Air filter was cleaning and remote was not functioning. Hence we can safely believe that the problem in the A.C. machine has arisen after a period of 11 months from the date of purchase. Even in the service report it was not mentioned about the complaint made by the complainant that the A.C. machine was giving sounds and abrasions. Ex.A4 is another service report dated 26-5-2008 issued by the 1st opposite party. It shows that service engineer attended the complaint and recorded that new P.C.B. Board and remote were replaced and the unit was in good working condition and was found O.K. In this service report also it was not stated about sound problem. The replaced P.C.B. Board and remote were exempted from warranty period as one year already elapsed by 26-5-2008. Though the opposite party shall not be liable to replace the parts after the warranty, they did the same to maintain the good relation with the customer. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice issued on 22-5-2008 by the complainant to the opposite parties No.1 to 3. It was received by the opposite parties. Ex.A6 is their acknowledgements. Ex.A7 is the postal receipts for notice dated 22-5-2008. Ex.A8 is the another legal notice dated 28-5-2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 to 3. Ex.A9 is their acknowledgements and Ex.A10 is the postal receipts for notice dated 28-5-2008.

It is not the case of the complainant that the servicemen of the 2nd opposite party had not attended the problem whenever he made a complaint they attended the complaint. Therefore, we find on point No.1 that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.



8. Point No.2:- The complainant has claimed for the replacement of A.C. machine. The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the A.C. machine is in working condition and hence the question of replacement of A.C. machine does not arise. It is by now settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if it can be repaired. Without proving any manufacturing defect , the complainant cannot claim replacement of the A.C. machine. The complainant was unable to satisfy us about the factum of manufacturing defect. He had not filed any report of the Technical expert stating that he A.C. machine is having any manufacturing defect and even after repairs, the A.C. machine cannot be made workable. When a part or component could be replaced and defect could be rectified replacement cannot be ordered. For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the problem complained by the complainant was rectified by the servicemen of the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, we find that the complainant is not entitled for the directions as prayed for. This is not a proper case to order replacement of A.C. machine or for direction for refund of amount of Rs.26,000/-.

I have brought a ac with Voltas, a 1.5 ton Vertis premium spilt a/c from Vijay TV Show Room on 27th April-2010 in Guntur. I have been facing problem since the day 2nd, the installation was done. I have logged a complaint with Voltas Customer Care (24 X 7). The Complaint number is 10my1500965 . On the second day the Technician named “Shareef” is visited my place and found the problem with the Compressor and leakage of Gas. After that no one is coming up to look at the matter . This was raised a 23 days back and the company record is also showing the status of complain as pending and still there is no response from Voltas or from the dealer. I have been followed up with these people for n number of times through calling the dealer, Voltas Customer Care (24 X 7) and also sent mail for requesting like anything.

I have not got any response from them. I just wanna to make the people aware, what kind of service is providing by the Voltas by my complaint. and how they will treat people like anything while giving a faulty product too.

I am from Chennai. My Voltas Split AC remote and sensor had been taken to Voltas service center in Chennai Chetpet on 20th April 2010 by Voltas so called Engineer informing that it will be returned back within 3 days. Till today (24th July 2010) I have not got it back. I must have made a minimum of 150 calls to the service center for getting it back. When ever I call, someone will pick and provide different answers like it will be sent soon, engineer is on the way with remote etc etc. The engineer has not reached yet. I think he is coming by walk from Antartica to give the remote to me. The so called Manager in that office one Mr. Prashant will never picks up phone. Once when I checked the route to visit the Voltas Service center, the person who attended the phone did not provide, stating that even if you come you will not get it then why should you come?? This is the worst service experiance in my life. So pathetic, Lethargic and irresponsible. My baby girl who is 3 months old has got fever since we could not adjust the AC temperature or set timer. This sort of service level will spoil the reputation of the Voltas. I will never ever suggest anyone to buy this product due to this. Voltas should keep up their service level upto the customers expectation and suggest not to outsource it to any 3rd parties who doesnt have capability. I was wondering how long it will take to get my AC repaired if I face a problem in compressor or so (An year???). I do not know whom to contact and what to do to escalate this to some senior officials in Voltas. The Chennai Voltas Service Center(Chetpet) number is 044 28361260. Service report No. is 91908 and call number is 18748. The Call number from Voltas call center is 10AP1605806. If anyone knows how to escalate please help.

I bought a voltas 2.0T split ac unit from Rathna Fan House on Aug 9, 2010. The unit that they sold was 'DOA - Dead on Arrival'. For the last 3 days I have made numerous phone calls to the dealer, voltas customer care (1-800 number) and Voltas service management (Murugan and Bajiluddin), but in vain. I live in USA and have come to India on a short vacation. Is there any recourse by law to get this machine replaced? Your response would be appreciated.

Regards,

Magesh

I have purchased 1.5 ton voltas vertis plus split air conditioner through spencer retail shop located at kakinada for rs.28,500,on 08-05-2011.recently,coil sensor(rs.450/-)and hecter sensor(rs.55o/-)were replaced by collecting money for the spare parts as they are cut by rats or somthing.since the date the mechanic undertake the repair on 16-10-2011,the cooling syste failed to function.

Voltas AC split 1.0T Vertis Elite
Purchased from Kohinoor Televideo Pvt. Ltd., Vashi, Navi Mumbai on 26/04/2011.
Registered a complaint for heavy water leakage from internal unit as below:
Complaint number: 11OC0800835, Date: 04/10/2011
The complaint has not been resolved yet saying water tray is out of stock.
We could not use this AC since then. I am writing on 2/12/2011, almost two months gone.

I want a strict lesson to be taught to Voltas for selling products that they can not provide service commitment for.

While registering the complaint, I was assured that they will fix it in next 24 hours.

The product is still under valid warranty period.

Regards,
Amitesh Jha
9833233892

Just don't trust them from now on. Instead go from other brands. there many- LG Samsung Toshiba Daikin etc.

We bought an voltas vertis split ac on april 10 2012,from ajay enterprises tirupati (509,balaji colony,tirupati---ph no :0877 6455845)installation was done on the same day.we bought it for making our room cool in this hot summer but it is working as a room heater even at a temparature of 17 degrees centigrade.even blower is not working properly from the first day itself. We gave complaint to the ajay enterprises but the response is very poor from them .after 3 days mechanic came to solve the problem but he could not. Even after 3 hours of running the room is not getting cool. Customer service is very poor .