Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1104/2014

SANG SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIG BAZAR - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        1104 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  01/12/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 04/11 /2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          07/10 /2016                                                                                                      

In matter of

Mr. Sang Singh, adult   

S/o- Sh. Roop Singh 

R/o-25,BN SSB, Ghitorni

New Delhi 110047………………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Big Bazar

At Mayur Vihar Metro Station,     

Mayur Vihar Phase I,

Delhi 110091

 

2- M/s Prestige TTK Co.,

36,DLF Industrial Area

Kirti Nagar, opp. Fun Cinema         

Moti Nagar, New Delhi 110015

 

3-M/s service Point

Autho. service Station of Prestige,

Jodhpur, Rajasthan..……………………….……………………………Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate ………………………..Puneet Tandon  

Opponent 1……. ……………………………………..Naiyar Mateen

Opponent 2…………………………………………….Naresh Chandra Jina, AR

Opponent 3…………………………………………….Nemo 

 

Quorum  –        Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased a Hybrid Combo Cook Top vide model no GTIC03L with serial no. 31089827 on dated 21/01/2014 for a sum of Rs 10,770/ from OP1 vide annexure CW1/1.  The cook top had one year warranty.

The complainant stated that the said cook top had some problem, so he lodged his complaint with OP3 at Jodhpur on 23/09/2014, as he was posted there. The job card vide complaint no. JAIP598635 was marked as CW1/2. The problem noted was marked as “Not repairable”. So, complainant came to Delhi and handed over the cook top to OP1 vide gate pass no 371 dated 20/10/2014 marked as CW1/3.

Even after contacting OP1 and OP2, complainant did not get any satisfactory reply, so filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of cook top with compensation of Rs 50,000/-for harassment and Rs 35,000/- for litigation charges.  

Notices were served. OP1 with OP2 and 3 put their appearance, but even after receiving the copy of complaint, OP2 and 3 did not submit their reply even after giving number of opportunities. So their stage was closed and case was proceeded Ex Parte against OP2 and 3. OP1 submitted their written statement.

OP1 submitted that the complainant had purchased the Cook Top under a scheme comprising of five items for sum of Rs 10,770/-. As cook top developed some problem, so it was rectified by OP3 free of cost as the product was under warranty. Even that the complainant returned the product to OP1 as per gate pass evidence on record. The product had no defect as checked by OP1, but the complainant had refused to take back and insisted for refund. The repaired product was with OP1.  OP1 stated that the warranty was a subject matter of OP2 which was given to complainant.  Hence, OP1 was not a necessary party as they only sold the product and service was taken fromOP3 as an authorized centre of OP2.

Complainant and OP1 submitted their evidences on affidavit which were on record.  Arguments were heard and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts of the complaint and evidences on record.  It was an admitted fact that the cook top was purchased from OP1 and was serviced by OP3. The job card remark reads as “No Problem” with not repairable. There was no evidence to see that the cook top had any manufacturing defect. More so, OP1 had informed for collection of repaired cook top from OP1, but complainant did not collect the same and insisted for refund.  

We have not found any deficiency in service from OP1 and OP3. Also the product had no manufacturing defect. Hence, complainant could not produce any evidence to prove that the product had manufacturing defect or any deficiency in service given by OP 1 and 3.

We do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed without any cost with direction to complainant to collect the product from OP1 within one month from the receiving of this order.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                    (Dr) P N Tiwari Member

 

                                            Shri Sukhdev Singh President