Chandigarh District Commission Holds Voltas, Its Technician And Store Liable For Selling Defective Refrigerator And Failing To Resolve Issues
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Voltas, its technician and Cool Star Refrigeration Store, Chandigarh liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair the refrigerator after charging Rs. 1,800/- from the Complainant....
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Voltas, its technician and Cool Star Refrigeration Store, Chandigarh liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair the refrigerator after charging Rs. 1,800/- from the Complainant. The District Commission directed them to refund Rs. 1,800/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses.
Brief Facts:
Mr. Sushil Gupta (“Complainant”) purchased a Voltas refrigerator from Cool Star Refrigeration (“Store”) in September 2021. Shortly after the purchase, the refrigerator experienced water leakage issues, prompting the Complainant to request repair services from the Voltas, and the store. Despite the technician's attempt to rectify the issue on September 24/25, 2021, for which the Complainant was charged Rs. 1800/-, the problem persisted. However, despite receiving the amount from the Complainant, the defect could not be removed from the refrigerator and the water leakage again started. The Complainant made several requests to Voltas and the store but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Voltas, the store, and the technician.
In response, Voltas and its technician contested the complaint, stating preliminary objections related to maintainability, cause of action, and alleged concealment of facts. While acknowledging the refrigerator's warranty status and denying refusal of service, they claimed the Complainant obstructed their technical staff during inspection attempts. It stated that there was no formal complaint which was registered by the Complainant. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The store didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission rejected the argument of Voltas and its technician that the Complainant did not lodge any formal complaints and obstructed their inspection attempts. The WhatsApp messages annexed by the Complainant were perused. The conversations demonstrated that the Complainant made several efforts to address the issue. Further, Voltas, its technician and the store acknowledged receiving the payment for attempted repairs. Moreover, it held that despite charging the Complainant for repair services, Voltas, its technician, and the store failed to rectify the issues.
Therefore, the District Commission held Voltas, its technician, and the store liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the District Commission directed them to refund ₹ 1,800/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum. They were also directed to pay an amount of ₹ 5,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him along with paying ₹ 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
Case Title: Sushil Gupta vs The Voltas Limited and Others