VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. AMRITPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 16.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 709 of 2009.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased 1.0 on Voltas Vertis plus Window AC 022821 for Rs. 15500 from OP No. 3 i.e. Gupta Electric Company against invoice No. 5654 dated 23.6.2008. The complainant was out of station from 27.6.2008 to 22.7.2008 because of holidays and when she came back, she started the AC but the AC started giving loud noise. The complainant contacted OP No. 3 for the alleged defect in the A.C. who advised her to contact OP No. 2 i.e. Voltas Limited and the technician of OP No. 2 visited the premises of the complainant and stated that the noise was due to looseness of window glasses. The complainant got checked the window glasses from the carpenter but the same problem was continued. The complainant made a number of complaints but the problem of loud noise in the A.C. was not rectified by OP Nos. 2 and 3. The complainant made written request on 18.10.2008 to OP No. 2 for the change of A.C. and similar request was also made through e -mail dated 29.1.2009 but the OPs failed to replace the A.C. On the above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) REPLY was filed by the OPs in which the factum of purchase of AC by the complainant had not been denied. It was pleaded that in the complaint the complainant mentioned the Job No. 56 of August and 498 of September whereas the complainant had placed on record only job No. 82 dated 13.11.2008. The job sheets available with OPs are 1449, 1668 and 1800 were duly signed by the complainant. It was pleaded that when any of electronic or electrical product is in operation, it makes the noise of motor/compressor. It was averred by the OPs that all the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended to and rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.