Delhi

North East

CC/81/2017

PANKAJ GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.K. ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 81/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Pankaj Gupta S/o Sh. Trilok Chand R/o A-246, Gali No. 16, A-Block Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	A.K. Electronics C-131/2A, Tanki Road Bhazanpura, Delhi-110053   Videocon 12th , Videocon Tower Jhandewalan Extn. New Multan Nagar New Delhi-110056	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

06.03.2017 28.01.2019 28.01.2019

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Videocon washing machine of Model Virat Neo 8kgs from OP1 manufactured by OP2 on 07.06.2015 vide invoice no 5754 book no 62 for a sum of Rs. 10,300/- inclusive of vat. However, the said washing machine got burnt due to short circuit on 04.01.2017 for which the complainant made several calls to customer care of OP2 and every time given assurance of a visit of executive to rectify the defect but none ever visited his premises. Therefore, feeling aggrieved with deficiency of service on the part of OPs in having failed to repair a defective washing machine causing extreme mental agony to the complainant, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint praying for issuance of direction against OPs to refund the cost of the washing machine i.e. Rs.10,300/- alongwith compensation of  Rs. 60,000/- for harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The complainant had attached copy of the invoice dated 07.06.2015 towards purchase of washing machine  alongwith copies of mobile messages from customer care of OP2 for the period 04.01.2017 to 21.02.2017.
3. Notices were issued to the OPs. Notice to OP1 11.04.2017 and notice sent to OP2 was received back with postal remark “refused” which is deemed service as per section 28 A (3) of CPA. None appeared on behalf of the OPs and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.06.2017.
4. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant on 09.11.2017 and 18.04.2018 respectively.
5. During the course of oral argument the Forum had put the complainant to the question of production of guarantee / warranty card for proving that the said washing machine under warranty at the time of it getting burnt after more than one and half years of purchase to which the complainant gave an evasive reply of not in possession of same nor the original box / carton of the washing machine to corroborate his averment of washing machine being under warranty.
6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person. In the absence of warranty / guarantee card, mere bald averment by the complainant of the washing machine having two years warranty shall not hold any water. The Hon’ble National
   Commission in the judgment of Sure Marketing Services v. Leo D’ Souza 1992 (II) CPJ 364 (NC) in a case in which the picture tube of TV had burnt out after the expiry of warranty period, reversed the orders of both district forum and State Commission which had allowed the complaint on grounds of orders suffering from material irregularity and held that usually in such cases a warranty card for usually is for one year. Further the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Dina Nath Yadav v. Micronass Telecom Nokia authorized service centre III (2017) CPJ 61 (NC) upheld the observation of UP SCDRC that in cases where warranty period had expired, if the complainant wants to get his machine repaired, he supposed to make payment for repair regardless of cost incurred thereon.
7. In light of the failure on the part of the complainant to prove that the subject washing machine was covered under warranty at the relevant time due to non- production of the warranty card to prove that the damage was within warranty period coupled with the settled law as discussed above, we are not inclined to allow the present complainant as the same is devoid of merit and dismiss the same with no order as to cost.

 

8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on  28.01.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member