Heading1 Heading2 Complaint Case No. CC/110/2017 1. YASHPAL SHARMA. S/O SH.PITAMBER SINGH RESIDENT OF H.NO-73,POWER HOUSE COLONY ,HMT ,PINJORE ,TESHIL KALKA,DISTRICT PANCHKULA(HARYANA). ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S BHUMI SINGH AIR -CONDITIONS & ELECTRICAL GOODS & ORS. PLOT NO.182/20,INDUSTRIAL AREA,PHASE-1,CHANDIGARH,AUTHORISED SERVICE CENTRE OF THE VOLTAS ,THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. 2. M/S R.S SERVICE SHOP NO.15,PEER BABA ROAD,BALTANA,DISTRICT MOHALI-160055(PUNJAB)AUTHORISED SERVICE CENTRE OF THE VOLTAS, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.. 3. M/S PAYTM(WWW.PAYTM .COM) B-121,SEC-5,NODIA (UP) THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. 4. M/S AMIT ENTERPRISES 70,SAROJNI NAGAR MARKET,NEW DELHI ,THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. 5. VOLTAS LIMITED 1ST FLOOR,A-43,M.C.I.E,MATHURA ROAD,NEW DELHI-110044,THROUGH ITS CARE MANAGER ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Mr.Dharam pal PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. ANITA KOOPAR MEMBER For the Complainant: SAMIKSHA SHARMA, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Dated : 04 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA. Consumer Complaint No 110 of 2017 Date of Institution 19.5.2017 Date of Decision 4.1.2018 Yash Pal Rana, aged 47 years, S/o Sh. Pitamber Singh, R/o House No.73, Power House Colony, HMT, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula (Haryana). ?.Complainant Versus M/s Bhumi Singh Air conditions & Electrical Goods, Plot No.182/20, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, authorized service centre of the Voltas, through its authorized signatory. M/s R.S.Service, Shop No.15, Peer Baba Road, Baltana, District Mohali 160055 (Punjab), authorized service centre of the Voltas, through its authorized signatory. 3. M/s Paytm (www.paytm.com), B-121, Sector 5, Noida (Uttar Pradesh) through its authorized signatory. M/s Amit Enterprises, 70, Sarojni Nagar Market, New Delhi, through its proprietor/authorized signatory. Voltas Limited, 1st Floor, A-43, M.C.I.E, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044, through, through its Care Manager. ?.Opposite Parties COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. Before: Mr. Dharam Pal, President. Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member. Present: Mr. Samiksha Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. OPs No.1,2 and 4 already ex-parte. Mr. B.B.Sethi, Advocate for the OP No.3. Mr. Rajender Pandey, Advocate for the OP No.5. ORDER (Dharam Pal, President) 1. The brief facts are that the OP No.3 is advertising firm and sells the products of various firms and manufactures directly to the customers and on believing the assurance and advertisement of the OP NO.3, the complainant ordered the Air conditioner, Model Voltas 185 JY 1.5 Ton 5 Star Split AC manufactured by OP No.5. The AC carries a warranty of one year. The said air conditioner was supplied by the OPs NO.3 and 4 to the complainant vide invoice No.31845/2016-17/13333, dated 19.5.2016 for Rs. 34,150/- excluding the shipping charges of Rs. 99/-. The Air conditioner reached the complainant on 24.5.2016. The said product was enstalled by service engineer from the OP No.1 at the residence of complainant on 25.5.2016. But the next date the A.C started giving problems. The complainant immediately brought the said facts into the knowledge of the service engineer namely Sanoj, who had installed the said AC. Thereafter, the said engineer visited the residence of the complainant for the rectification of the fault 10-12 times with one or another service engineer, but the problem in the said AC remained as it is. The said service engineer even changed the remote of the said AC on the pretext that might be the remote having some defect. Thereafter, the service engineer namely Anil Kumar of the OP No.1 disclosed that the PCB of the said product is defective and hence replaced the same on 19.6.2016. Thereafter, the complainant kept on using the said AC for about 1? month, but there remain certain problem in the said AC, as there was no proper cooling inside the room even after installation of the said AC. The complainant again contacted the said service engineer, but he disclosed the cooling will increase with the passage of time and use. But of no use. Thereafter, due to weather change the complainant stopped using the AC. In the month of April, 2017 the complainant started the AC and found that there was no cooling from the said A.C. The complainant immediately lodged the complaint with the OP No.5 on 3.4.2017, which was registered at Serial no.17040307278. But no one has come to rectify the defects in the said AC. Thereafter, complainant again got lodged his complaints on 13.5.2017 and 15.5.2017. On repeated complaints of complainant, official/service engineer form the OP No.2 visited the residence of the complainant on 16.5.2017 and after inspecting the AC, service engineer has stated that there was no gas in the compressor of the AC and refilled the gas in the said AC. He also stated that there was no proper gas in compressor of the said AC even at the time of installation of the said AC and due to which the problem in the said AC has occurred. Even thereafter also there was no proper cooling from the said AC and complainant feel that there might be some manufacturing defect in the said AC. Even after spending the huge amount, the said AC was not working properly. The complainant requested the OP NO.2 to replace the said defective AC, But OP NO.2 did not pay any heed and refused the same. Complainant also requested OP No.4 to replace the same, but no effect. The said AC is not replaced by the OPs. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint. 2. Notice were issued to the OPs No.1,2 and 4 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1,2 and 4. It is deemed to be served and the OPs No.1,2 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte. Upon notice, OPs No. 3 and 5 have appeared to contest the complaint by filing their separate written statement that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; the complainant does not have any locus standi to initiate the present proceedings? the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. 3. In his written version, the OP No.3 has stated that Paytm E-commerce Pvt. Ltd., is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 2013 having its corporate office at various places and the OP No.3 is the onwern of the website www.paytm.com/www.paytmmall.com along with the mobile application named Paytm/paytm Mall and Bazaar, which is an online market place and acts as a platform for different sellers to sell their products and for different buyers to access and purchase amongst variety of goods offered by various sellers, subject to the terms and condition as enumerated on the website of OP NO.3. OP No.3 further stated that OP NO.3 is an intermediary as defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and exempted from liability for third party information, date and communication link made available or hosted by it. OP No.3 is a common market place to facilitate the sellers to list their goods and buyers to access goods from multiple sellers. OP No.3 does not sell any of the goods on the said website. The complainant, at the time of placing the order bearing No.1748615723 on 16th May,2016 for purchasing one ?Voltas 185 JY 1.5 Ton 5 Star Split AC?, inter-alia, have agreed to the said terms and conditions, which provides that ?Paytm has no control over the existence, quality, safety or legality of items displayed. In market place model goods/services made available for sale electronically on website should clearly provide name, address and other contact details of the seller, post sales, delivery of goods to the customers and customer satisfaction will be responsibility of the seller. 4. In the written version, OP No.5 has stated that complainant has not appended any expert report in case of any manufacturing defect, which is technical in nature. It is stated by the OP NO.5 that product carries a warranty of one year and the OPs are duty bound to render after sales service during the warranty period and the same has been promptly rendered to the satisfaction of the complainant irrespective of the nature of the defect. The ACs are to work efficiently and effectively up to approximately 35 degree temperature and if the temperature arises beyond that, the cooling of any AC would not be optimum as the ACs are manufactured to cool up to a certain extent and not beyond the 43 degree Celsius of temperature. The said AC was in constant use since 19.5.2016 and it appears that psychologically the complainant is more upset than the genuine defect being in the AC as there is no specific defect mention by the complainant. During the peak summer season various operational defects of minor nature keep on occurring which does not mean that there is any kind of manufacturing defect in the product. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 5. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP No.3 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A along with documents Annexure R3/1 to R3/4 and closed the evidence. OP No.5 has tendered into evidence by way of Annexure R5/A along with documents Annexure R5/1 and R5/2 and closed the evidence. 6. We have heard the counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs NO.3 and 5 and considered the written arguments filed by the OP NO.5 and have also perused the record. 7. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant had purchased an Air conditioner, Model Voltas 185 JY 1.5 Ton 5 Star Split AC through website of OP No.3 and the same was sold/delivered by OP No.4 vide invoice No.31845/2016-17/13333, dated 19.5.2016 for Rs. 34,150/- excluding the shipping charges of Rs. 99/-, which was received by the complainant on 24.5.2016 (Annexure C1), manufactured by OP No.5. 8. It is averred that the AC carries warranty of one year. The said product was installed by OP NO.1 (Annexure C5). The complainant starting facing the problem in the AC. On the complaint of the complainant, the service engineer namely Sanoj from OP NO.1, who had installed the said AC visited the residence of the complainant and changed the remote of the AC. Thereafter, the service engineer Anil Kumar of OP No.1 replaced the PCB of the AC on 19.6.2016 (Annexure C3). The complainant used the said AC about 1 ? month, but there was no proper cooling. Thereaft