Delhi

North East

CC/119/2022

Sunder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd. & Jain Radio & Electric Works 2021 - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.119/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sunder S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar, R/o: B-230, Gali No. 4, Sushila Garden, Mandoli Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Bajaj Finance Ltd. & Jain Radio & Electric Works 2021 Office at: WZ-450A, Main Road, Raj Nagar-1, Palam Colony, New Delhi 110045 & Symphony Company	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

19.05.2022 03.10.2023 23.11.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Cooler Symphony Touch 80 from the Opposite Party and the said product was financed by the Finance Bajaj Finance Limited. The total price of the cooler was Rs. 13,299/-. The warranty of the said product was for one year. During the warranty period the said product was not working properly. It is his case that the Complainant lodged a complaint to Symphony Company and company sent a technician at the house of the Complainant after seven days and the technician told that this is the highest speed of the cooler and cooling and he left the house of the Complainant and said that he could not do anything about this. When the Complainant took up the matter with the Financed Company then they told him that entire problem about the cooler and they could not do anything about the said product. Again Complainant called the Bajaj Finance and they told him that he had to contact the dealer i.e. Opposite Party. After that the Complainant called Opposite Party but they did not do anything and also do not sent any reply of the message of the Complainant. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to take back the said cooler and pay compensation to the Complainant on account of mental harassment.  

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed common written statement. It is stated that the Opposite Party is the only a Trader of Cooler Symphony Touch and Complainant ordered the said product online from the website of the Opposite Party i.e. Bajaj Finance Ltd. It is further stated that the Opposite Party being a Trader handed over the Cooler Symphony Touch to the Complainant with a bill invoice mentioning in paras (i) and (v) of the Declaration that the service would be undertaken by the manufacturer only and goods once sold would not be taken back or exchanged. It is further stated that the Opposite Party gave the customer care contact number and address of the seller company which was responsible for the service, maintenance, warranty and guarantee of the product i.e. Symphony House, 3^rd Floor, FP12- TP50 Bodakev, Off SG Highway, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059, India to the Complainant. It is further submitted that it was the Complainant due to which the Opposite Party had to face mental agony. It is prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. Despite grant of opportunities, Opposite Party has failed to file the evidence. Therefore, evidence of Opposite Party has been closed vide order dated 13.03.2023.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file. The Complainant in his original complaint impleaded Jain Radio & Electric Works 2021 as Opposite Party. While he amended his complaint, he included the name of the Bajaj Finance Ltd. and Symphony Company in the title of the case also, but he did not implead Bajaj Finance Ltd. and Symphony Company as a separate Opposite Parties. Nor he gave address of Bajaj Finance Ltd. and symphony Company. Hence, notice was issued on the address given in the complaint. He has given the address only of Jain Radio & Electric Works in his original complaint. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to address the arguments. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a Cooler Symphony Touch 80 from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 13,299/- and warranty of the said cooler was for one year. During the warranty period, the said cooler was not working properly for which he has lodged a complaint with the manufacturing company of the said cooler and Symphony company sent a technician at the house of the Complainant to examine the said cooler and informed the Complainant that there is no defect in the said cooler. The Complainant again took up the matter with the finance company who told him that they are not concerned with the said product and advised him to contact the dealer i.e. Opposite Party. When he approached the Opposite Party they did not do anything about his cooler. Hence, there is no deficiency of service of the part of Opposite Party.
7. The case of the Opposite Party i.e. Jain Radio & Electric Works is that he is merely a trader of the Cooler Symphony Touch Company and while handing over the said cooler he told the Complainant about any service, maintenance, warranty and guarantee of the cooler manufacturing company is responsible and he provided details of customer care contact number, address etc. to the Complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
8. It is clear from the above facts that the Complainant included manufacturer of the cooler as Opposite Party which is responsible for the service, maintenance, warranty and guarantee of the said cooler but Complainant did not provide the address of the Symphony Company i.e. manufacturer nor lead any evidence regarding manufacturing defect of the cooler or he approached the manufacturer regarding the service of the said cooler.
9. In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.   
10. Order announced on 23.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)