Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/508

TRIVENI SHANKER - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL commission,

WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

CC No. 508/2018

In re:-

Triveni Shankar Srivastava

182 C, DDA Flats, Shivaji Enclave Extn.

Delhi-110027

                                                                           ………..Complainant

VERSUS

M/s BPL Ltd.

64, Church Street

Banglore-560001

Karnataka                                                                  .............   Opposite Party

 

Coram:                                                                             

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

Date of Institution:04.12.2018

Judgment reserved on:12.04.2022

Date of Decision:20.04.2022

 

Order by – RICHA JINDAL (Member)

 

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

 

1. The complainant purchased the one BPL 6.5 kg. Semi-automatic top loading Washing Machine (Model No. BSATL65N1 Maroon) on 09.08.2017 through shopping portal.

 

2. The above-said machine has been running in good condition a few days after purchase, but then developed some problems during the warranty period.

 

3. The complainant immediately filed a complaint regarding the problem of the said machine in the customer care of the Opposite party. But nothing happened even after the duly receipt of the complaint.

 

4. The complainant made several complaints to Opposite Party's customer service, but there was no response.

 

5. Finally, on 08.08.2018 the complainant was contacted by the OP and he informed the Opposite Party about the above problem with the said machine after which a technician visited the complainant's house.

 

6. The said technician had informed the complainant that some parts of the said machine are not working properly and after informing the Opposite Party, he will get the new parts and then he will be installed.

 

7.  The complainant had contacted the Opposite Party’sdepartment through e-mail and informed it. But the same was rejected due to the non-availability of those parts.

 

8. The complainant sent the last email on 25.09.2018 and informed the Opposite Party that he had gone to court because the Opposite Party had not responded to his email.

 

1. The complainant could not use the machine for the payment invested in the said machine.

 

10. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/respondents the complainant has suffered immense mental pain agony and torture for which the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant.

 

11. The reasons and the facts submitted above, the instant complaint of the complainant with a request to pass an order in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party as prayed for in the interest of justice equity and fair play.

 

2.     Accordingly, on 11/12/2018 after hearing arguments on admission, notice was issued to the op to appear before Commission on 26/02/2019 but none appeared on behalf of respondents despite service of notice. Even the tracking report of the Notice regarding the refusal of the same on 26.02.2019 has been placed on record. In M/s. Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SCC 630, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “That if a registered letter addressed to the person at his residential address does not get served in the normal course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's conduct. If he is staying away for some time all that he has to do is to leave necessary instructions with the postal authorities either to detain the letters addressed to him for some time until he returns or to forward them to the address where he has gone or to deliver them to some other person authorized by him.” Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Hira Lal &Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 523 has held that notices returned with postal remarks “Not available in the House”, “House Locked” and “Shop Closed", must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents. Accordingly, the respondent proceeded ex parte on 26-02-2019.

3.     The Opposite Party was also served through court notice and after that also they didn’t turn up and ignored the court notice. This act of the respondents clearly shows that the respondents are avoiding/disrespecting the court proceedings although they have been duly served.

 

4. The complainant filed exparte evidence by way of an affidavit on 12-09-2019 testifying to all the facts stated in the complaint along with documents affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. Oral arguments were heard on 12/04/2022. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions from the complainant.

 

5. Although the emails exchanged between the parties, regarding the complaints made by the complainant towards faulted washing machine and the reply given by the OP whereby they duly acknowledged the delay in resolving the grievance of the complainant vide email dated 26/09/2018, have not been duly proved through the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, in a decision delivered on July 14, 2020, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Goratyal held that production of a certificate shall not be necessary when the original electronic record is produced. The original electronic record can be adduced directly as evidence if the owner of the computer/tablet/mobile phone steps into the witness box and establishes that the device where the information is first stored is owned/operated by him. Further, Anvar v. Basheer ((2014) 10 SCC 473) held that – “… if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act”. It is deemed that the emails and what’s app chat between the parties are duly admissible and duly proved on record.

 

6. The testimony of CW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. The Complainant has proved on record the relevant documents in support of its case.

 

7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the Complainant or the claim of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is within the time limit since the last chat between the parties took place on 26.09.2018 and the complaint was filed on 4.12.2018. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of Complainant and the documents proved on record, Complainant is entitled to recover Rs 6,490/- (Rupees Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety only) from Opposite Party

 

8.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against the OP and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

[i]    To refund Rs.6,490/- i.e. the price of the Washing Machine.

[ii]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant and his family members;

[iii]   To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

9. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.

 

11. File be consigned to record room.

 

12.   Announced on 20/04/2022.

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President