Delhi State Commission Holds Voltas Liable For Charging Repair Costs For AC Within Warranty Period

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Voltas split AC from M/s Sharma Enterprises (“Seller”). The AC came with a one-year warranty. After two years of installation, the AC stopped working. The Complainant filed a telephonic complaint, following which Voltas sent a mechanic to repair it. The mechanic charged Rs. 3,400/- for welding the indoor unit and then the AC's warranty was extended for another year.

During this extended warranty period, the AC started exhibiting cooling issues. The technicians charged Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,100/- for gas refills on two different occasions. However, the AC stopped working completely after a month of the last gas refill. Another complaint led to a technician's visit, but the AC malfunctioned once more within two months. The Complainant followed up with more complaints. However, no permanent solution was provided. When the AC stopped cooling again, the Complainant sent legal notices to Voltas's technicians. The technicians were sent again. However, the repairs remained unsuccessful.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Northeast Delhi (“District Commission”). The District Commission directed Voltas and its authorized service centre to pay Rs. 2000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses.

Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”). The Complainant argued that the AC's defects were due to negligent handling by unqualified technicians provided by Voltas. He further claimed that Voltas delayed repairs and charged unfairly for gas refills and welding.

In response, Voltas contended that the Complainant's negligence in failing to service the AC caused the issues. It further argued that the Complainant should bear repair costs post-warranty. It also contended that fumes from a nearby drain caused recurring defects.

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Commission observed that the Complainant purchased an AC in 2014, which began malfunctioning two years later, in 2016. As per Voltas, the recurring defects were caused due to fumes from a nearby drain. However, the State Commission found no evidence of a drain nearby and observed the AC functioned normally after initial repairs in June 2016. This implied that the AC's defects were unrelated to its environment.

The State Commission further held that Voltas failed to provide adequate servicing during the extended warranty period. Therefore, the State Commission modified the order of the District Commission and directed Voltas to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony. Voltas was also directed to reimburse the repair costs incurred within the extended warranty period.

Case Title: Sauraj Singh vs M/s Voltas Ltd.

Case No.: First Appeal No. 74/2020

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Rahul Sharma

Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.

Date of Pronouncement: 06.11.2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order