Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/314/2023

ASHOK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S UTILITY TRADING ENGINEERS - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/314/2023
Date of Institution	:	26.6.2023
Date of Decision	:	10/11 /2023

 

Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Rakha Ram H. No.80, Shiva Enclave, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       M/s Utility Trading Engineers, SCO No. 308, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its partner/proprietor.

2.       M/s Voltas Limited SCO No.201-203, IInd floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/General Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	OPNo.1 exparte.
		Sh. Sanjay Judge, Advocate for OP No.2 alongwith Sh. Ankush Gupta, Area Service Manager of OP No.2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 13.4.2022 the complainant purchased one  Voltas spilt AC (hereinafter to be referred to as subject AC) vide invoice dated 13.4.2022 from OP No.1.  The subject AC carried one year warranty and it was also assured by the OPs to the complainant about  its prompt services. However, immediately after installment of the subject AC the same  started giving problem of cooling.  Therefore, the complainant approached the OP No.1 with the complaint of non-cooling by the subject AC. However, the OP No.1 failed to resolve the problem, resultantly, the complainant lodged complaint with OP No.2 vide complaint No.23052235722 dated 22.5.2022. Thereafter the   OP No.2 deputed their service engineer who upon checking the cooling of the subject AC, promptly informed the complainant that due to leakage of gas the same was not properly functioning  and after filling the gas he intimated the complainant that now the subject AC will start functioning  properly. However, again in the month of June 2022 the same problem occurred and the complainant lodged complaint with OP No.2 on 16.6.2022. Again the engineer of OP No.2 checked  the subject AC and found cooling problem and after doing some assessment, he assured the complainant that there will no problem in future. Again in the  summer season  in the month of May 2023 when the complainant started using the AC, the complainant again faced cooling problem from the subject AC. The complainant again lodged complainant with OP No.2  on 24.5.2023. Copy of message to this effect  is annexed as Annexure C-2 (colly). It is further alleged that after lodging of last complaint nobody has come forward to resolve the problem being faced by the complainant in the subject AC,  during the peak season. Thereafter the complainant again approached the OPs to resolve the issue through mail Annexure C-3 dated 29.5.2023 and it was assured  by the OP No.2  vide mail Annexure C-4  that the issue will be resolved at the earliest possible. In this manner, the subject AC is not working properly from the very beginning  of its purchase as it started giving problem immediately after one month of its installation and despite of several complaints made by the complainant, the problem in the subject AC has not been resolved. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1  was properly served and when OP No.1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.7.2023.
3. OP No.2  resisted the consumer complaint and filed its/their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, locus standi bad for non-joinder of parties. On merit admitted that the complainant had purchased the subject AC  on 13.4.2022 but denied that defective AC was sold by the answering OP to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complaints  lodged by the complainant were resolved effectively and complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against the answering OP. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. Complainant chose not to file rejoinder.
5. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments filed by OP No.2.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject AC on 13.4.2022 from OP No.1 vide Annexure C-1 for a sum of Rs.38,000/- and the OP No.2 is the manufacturer  of the subject AC and it had given one year warranty from 13.4.2022 to 12.4.2023, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the complainant approached the Ops within the warranty period for supplying the defective AC unit and the said act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the complainant had not approached the OPs within warranty period for the repair/replacement  of the subject AC  or for the refund of the amount and the complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed and for that purpose the evidence led by the complainant and OP No.2 is required to be scanned carefully since OP No.1 is already exparte.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the complainant had purchased the subject AC from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.38,000/-. Annexure C-2 is the extract of  mail sent by the complainant to OPs complaining about the defect in the subject AC. Thus one thing is clear from the Annexure C-2 that the complainant had approached OP No.2 first time on 24.5.2023 when he sent the first mail to the OPs  complaining about the defect in the subject AC, making further clear that the complainant had approached the OP after one year  of the purchase of the subject AC , which was purchased on 13.4.2022 i.e. beyond the warranty period. Though the complainant had alleged in the complaint that he immediately, approached the OPs  first time on 22.5.2022 and on 16.6.2022 and lodged the complaint with  the OP No.2 but since there is no iota of material i.e. copies of such complaints on record showing that the complainant had sent complaints to the OPs, it is safe to hold that the complainant ever approached the OPs either on 22.5.2022 or on 16.6.2022.
   3. Since the complainant has failed to adduce on record any evidence in the shape of any expert report indicating that there is manufacturing defect in the subject AC, we cannot order replacement/refund of the subject AC. Hence, this plea of the complainant cannot be acceded to and the OPs are only liable to  repair the subject AC
   4. However, when it has come on record that the complainant after noticing the defect qua the cooling  problem with the subject AC had approached the OPs even after the warranty period, the OPs were bound to provide the service to the complainant qua the subject AC which started giving cooling problem just after 13 months  i.e. after the sale of the subject AC  and since nothing has come on record that the OPs ever redressed the said complaint of the complainant qua the cooling till date, as a result of which the complainant was compelled to approach this Commission which otherwise was not necessitated and in this manner, it can further be safely held that the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service..  
   5. .   
3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to repair/remove the defect from the subject AC qua cooling problem immediately.
2. to pay an amount of ₹4000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

4. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i)&(iii) above.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 10/11/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member