Delhi

East Delhi

CC/518/2017

SHRI RAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ SANITARY STORE - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 518/17

 

Shriram Singh,

S/O Shri Harihar Singh

R/o A1/261, Gali No. 8, Harsh Vihar, Delhi

•  

Vs

1. M/s Bajaj Sanitary Stores

Plot No. 1, Krishna Market,

Jhilmil Colony, Delhi- 95

 

2. M/s Bhardwaj Electrical Works

18A, Street No. 13,

East Azad Nagar,

Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51

 

3. Shri Mayur Indurkar

Assistant Manager- After Sales Service

Cromptom Customer Service Team

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electrical Limited

Equinox Business Park, 1^st Floor, Tower 3,

LBS Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai- 400070

….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 28.12.2017

Judgment Reserved for: 18.11.2019

Judgment Passed on: 20.11.2019

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                           (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Ram Singh, the complainant, against, M/s Bajaj Sanitary Stores (OP-1), M/s Bhardwaj Electrical Works, (OP-2) and Shri Mayur Indukar, (OP-3).

 

Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 04.10.2017, the complainant purchased one SBMP Pump Crompton W/F LLMAIQG0000464 from OP-1 for Rs. 8,500/- for which invoice bearing            no. 316 was issued. It has been stated that within few days the motor pump became in-operational for which OP-1 was approached, who instructed the complainant to visit OP-2, the authorized service centre for Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited. On 12.10.2017, the complainant was asked to leave the motor pump for repairs with M/s Bhardwaj Electrical Works i.e. OP-2. The complainant has further stated that OP-2 refused to repair the motor pump on false pretext “Winding burnt due to dry running”.

Thereafter complaint was made to customer support on 16.10.2017 via email for which the complaint number 1710128763 was assigned on 25.10.2017. Despite, repeated reminders the complainant received a reply from OP-3 on 01.11.2017 stating that the product was out of warranty and the complainant had to pay for the service.

Feeling aggrieved due to non redressal of his grievance the complainant has prayed for directions to replace the motor pump with a new one, Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and deficiency in service.

Invoice dated 04.10.2017 issued by OP-1, job sheet issued by OP-2 which is dated 12.10.2017, emails dated 16.10.2017 to 16.11.2017 have also been annexed with the complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs.

Copy of the complaint was received by the Authorized Representative for OP-1, however they chose not to file any reply and did not appear on subsequent dates. OP-3 was also served, but they also did not put appearance. Hence, OP-1 and OP-3 were proceeded ex-parte.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint and has relied on Annexure-A to Annexure-C, which are the mails dated 16.10.2017, copy of reply by OP-3 is Annexure-D. He has further deposed that OP-2 via email had asked the complainant to take back the defective water pump or pay   Rs. 50/- per day as penalty to the service centre. He was also informed that the warranty would be made null and void after one month. Ultimately, the complaint was closed. These emails exchanged have been marked as Annexure-E to Annexure-G.

We have heard the submissions made by the Authorized Representative of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The said water pump was purchased on 04.10.2017 and warranty period was for 12 months. Complainant has placed on record job sheet dated 12.10.2017, when the pump was taken to OP-2, where the defect observed was “winding burnt due to dry running”, which has been denied by the complainant. This fact is further substantiated by email dated 16.10.2017 where the complainant has stated “I took it to your authorized service centre but they refused to repair it under warranty saying that the pump was run without water. I would like to say that it’s a false accusation. The pump never run without water.” OP-2 was also served but they also did not put appearance nor filed any reply, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte. Since, OPs are ex-parte the averment made by the complainant have remained        un-rebutted.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we hold that OP-3, being the manufacturer was liable to provide services. Since, they have failed to repair the motor pump, which was within the warranty period this amounts to deficiency in services. Therefore, we direct OP-3 to get the motor pump repaired free of cost and provide  a warranty for a period of 1 year from the date the repaired motor pump is handed over to the complainant. We further award compensation of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.

The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, else the amount awarded of Rs. 3,000/- shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr.P.N.TIWARI)                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                                     MEMBER                                                     MEMBER   

 

                     (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                           PRESIDENT