Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/4

Paramjit Kaur Lecturar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birla Electricals ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Jagvinder Singh Brar

24 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No.CC/15/4 of 5.1.2015

                                      Decided on:         24.6.2015

Paramjit Kaur, Lecturer w/o Jagvinder Singh Brar, Advocate # 126, Adarsh Colony, Behind Thapar University, Patiala-147001 (Mob.No.94637-33659)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Birla Electricals Ltd., 302, Atlanta Estate Goregaon-Muland Link Rd.,Goregaon(East) Mumbai-400 063 Tel.022240990111.

                                                                   …………….Op

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                      

Present:

For the complainant:    Sh.J.S.Brar, Advocate

For Op:                         Exparte.             

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that she had purchased one Food Processor-Classic, having placed an order on-line on 15.10.2012 on the basis of the advertisement being displayed on Star CJ Alive channel on T.V. The product was delivered to the complainant at her address #126,Adarsh Colony behind Thapar University, Patiala by the Arquex Courier Company. The product was packed in a card board box with a brown tape. The invoice was also pasted on the cardboard box and the same was billed for Rs.2900/-.
2. On 13.6.2014, the complainant lodged the complaint through mobile phone Nos.91670-41022 and 91670-41016 vide complaint No.S-14061704 .On 23.6.2014, the complainant made an enquiry about the action taken on the aforesaid complaint and the customer care service informed the complainant that her complaint had been transferred to the Delhi office of the company for necessary  action within a day or two.
3. When no action was taken on her complaint, the complainant had sent an e-mail to the Mumbai address through e-mail ID
4. Two more e-mails were sent on 9.9.2014 and 12.10.2014 requesting the Op to do the needful since the product had just not started when the same was tried self by the complainant.
5. On 14.11.2014, the complainant was supplied with another phone No.93111-93020 by the customer care service of the Op and the same belonged to the office of the Op at Delhi. The office of the Op at Delhi informed the complainant that the needful would be done  within a week  as they had more complaints to be attended to at Patiala. Their boy would be coming to see the food processor. On 2.12.2014, the complainant made the call twice through mobile phone No.093111-93020 but the same remained unanswered. The complainant further   contacted the Mumbai office of the Op through mobile phone No.09167041016 to enquire about the action taken on her complaint No.S14111402 assigned on 14.11.2014. The Mumbai office confirmed complaint number and promised to do the needful for the demo of the food processor. Again on 3.12.2014, the complainant again rang up through mobile phone No.093119322 but the call remained unanswered  although the same was repeated twice. The complainant made the attempts in this regard through the aforesaid mobile phone on 8.12.2014 and subsequently also for getting the needful done. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act)  with a prayer to direct the Op to do the needful so as to prevent further harassment and mental agony by the complainant on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the Op and to compensate her.
6. The Op despite service failed to turn up and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
7. In the exparte evidence, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and her counsel closed the evidence.
8. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
9. The complainant claims to have purchased the food processor from the Op having placed the order on 15.10.2012 on the basis of the  advertisement seen by her on Star CJ Alive a T.V. channel, through phone Nos.1800 500 1860, 022 444 18000, 0124 4418000 and that the product was delivered to her through Arquex Courier Company. It is also the case of the complainant that the invoice for Rs.2900/-was pasted on the cardboard box having contained the product. The complainant has not produced the invoice so as to show that the product was actually purchased by her and that she made the payment of the product to the courier boy having delivered the same to her, in the absence of which it is not possible for us to treat the complainant a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act.
10. Apparently, the complaint seems to be barred by limitation in as much as the product was purchased by the complainant in the month of October, 2012 but she brought this complaint on 5.1.2015 i.e. beyond a period of two years.
11. The grievance of the complainant is that when the product was delivered to her , she was informed that someone from the company would turn up and give the demonstration and would charge Rs.200/- from her. All this could be made out with the help of the retail invoice, which the complainant got at the time of getting the delivery of the product. The boy of the courier company could not make such an assurance because the courier company has nothing to do with the terms and conditions of the product made by the Op. The complainant has not been able to show from any document that such an assurance / undertaking was given by the Op.
12. The complainant has produced in evidence Exs.C1 to C3, the e-mails dated 21.8.2014, 9.9.2014 and 12.10.2014, to have been sent by Jagvinder Singh Brar through his e-mail ID , with regard to the problem of the complainant, in respect of the demonstration of the food processor having not been given, also having made a mention of complaint No.S-14061704 dated 13.6.2014.
13. Any number of e-mails to have been sent by the complainant could not save the period of limitation because the period of limitation had started from the very purchase of the product by the complainant in the month of October,2012. In case the complainant found that the Op had not deputed any person to give the demonstration of the product within a reasonable time of 1-2 months, it was not expected of the complainant to have sit idle rather she should have brought the complaint against the Op within a reasonable time of 1-2 months from the date of the purchase of the product. Apparently, the complaint appears to be barred by limitation.
14. We are also of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is without any cause of action , in as much as there is nothing to show that any assurance or undertaking was given by the Op with regard to any demonstration to be given to the purchaser of the product, which as discussed earlier, could be made out with the help of the retail invoice or any literature supplied alongwith the product. Ex.C4 is the copy of the literature of the product but we have not been able to find out any such assurance given by the manufacturer that the purchaser will be given a demonstration of the product at his/her house. Thus, it would appear that the plea taken up by the complainant that the Op had to give any demonstration is made up one. Ex.C4 contains the instructions with the help of the figures  given on page nos.3&4 and anybody going through the same can operate the food processor. Similarly the same contains the warranty on page no.7 and the same also contains the technique for making a use of the mini grinder and blander .
15. In case, the complainant realized that there was any defect in the functioning of the food processor, the complainant could easily get a report from an expert(mechanic) dealing in the food processors, who could easily point out the defect in the functioning of the product but no such report has been produced by the complainant and in that way of the matter also, it would appear that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint against the Op.
16. As an upshot of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that the complainant has failed to show that she had purchased the product from the Op because she has not placed on file any retail invoice and consequently the complaint is hereby dismissed, the same also being barred by limitation and being without any cause of action.

Pronounced

Dated: 24.6.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                 Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                         Member                                  President