D.O.F:13/05/2022
D.O.O:29/09/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.87/2022
Dated this, the 29th day of September 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Vinaya Kumar K., aged 56 years
S/o Sumana,
R/at Shivam House,
Arikady, Kumbla,
Kasaragod - 671321.
(Adv: Ranjitha Kumari C.) : Complainant
And
- Proprietor,
Anuradha Agencies,
Bendichal Building, Bank Road,
Kasaragod, 671121.
- Authorized Signatory,
Voltas Limited
Voltas House,
‘A’ Block,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,
Chinchpokli, Mumbai. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
Complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Voltas air conditioner from the dealer opposite party No.1 on 19/04/2019 manufactured by opposite party No.2 by paying Rs.31,300/- with compressor warranty certificate issued for 5 years. On 23/03/2022, the complainant found that AC is not working properly. The complainant and family was not able to sleep without AC which spoiled their working days. He informed the problem to opposite party No.1 but nobody responded. The opposite party No.1 took steps to register complaint as 2204113319. A technician of opposite party No.1 approached the complainant and after diagnosis suggested replacement of parts and promised to revisit after obtaining new parts for substituting the defective parts after leaving AC open. Technician failed to fulfil his promise even after 40 days. The complainant claims deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension, agony and sought to replace the AC and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of proceedings.
The opposite party No.1 filed written version admitting purchase of AC and registration of complaint on 01/04/2022. Opposite party No.1 deny that they behaved irresponsibly towards the complainant. Being dealer their duty ends with selling of product to the party. Any defect after sale, it is the duty of the company for service or replacement. After the complaint, the opposite party No.1 requested the company for speedy repair of AC.
The opposite party No.2 in their written version states that the value of the AC is 29,500 and not 31,300. The amount includes cost of stabilizer not that of Voltas. The technician attended the complainant on 02/04/2022 and found that PCB of the machine was defective. The part was not available at that time and informed to the complainant and the complainant was not willing to wait and as a good will gesture agreed to replace the machine for a lesser price of Rs.12,000/- on 12/05/2022. Compressor warranty is only for 5 years and complaint relates to printed circuit bound assembly and not of the compressor. Though there is a delay service was done properly, the complainant not entitled to replace but Voltas may be permitted to repair the AC as per terms of service.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A3 documents marked from their side. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice, Ext.A2 is the compressor warranty, Ext.A3 is the owner’s manual.
Following points arised for consideration:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief? If so, for what reliefs?
It is very pertinent to note that complainant admits that AC was purchased on 19/04/2019 and defect regarding no cooling is noted on 01/04/2022 technicians visited the house on 02/04/2022 because he was in gulf. Since the PCB was defective, order is given for its replacement. Promise of replacement and exchange was given after filing the complaint. From the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties both oral and documentary, it is clear that the product covers a warranty for 5 years including the compressor. It is also true that its PCB needs replacement of the control of opposite party No.1 to replace or refund. Since AC requires replacement of the important part namely PCB, it is defective and beyond repair. It is for opposite party No.2 to either replace or refund the price of the same as agreed in the version in para 5. The complainant while in box as PW1 a suggestion is made mainly he did not agree for exchange of old AC with new one on payment of difference in price of new AC. In any event though no allegation of manufacturing defect but opposite party No.2 agreed to replace the machine as above. Since AC is admittedly not working by giving cooling effect, there is no point of replacing its defective part but only solution is its replacement with a new AC. On supply and installation, opposite party No.2 is entitled to take back the old AC.
In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to replace or refund the price paid by him namely Rs.29,500/-. The opposite party No.2 having delayed the replacement/refund of price is liable for compensation in the circumstances of the case fixed Rs. 10,000/- and complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the Voltas AC complained of with a new Voltas AC of the same model free of cost or refund the price paid by him namely Rs.29,500/-(Rupees Twenty Nine thousand and Five hundred only) to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and also pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order. On compliance, complainant is directed to return the defective AC within seven days of the compliance of order by opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is exonerated from liability.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Tax invoice
A2 – Warranty
A3 – Owners manual
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Vinaya Kumar K.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
