Delhi

East Delhi

CC/4/2017

INDER JUNEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 04/17

 

Shri Inder Juneja

S/o Shri Mukand Lal Juneja

R/o 9/3182, Gali No. 4

Dharampura, Gurudwara Gali

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110 031                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

    Corporate Opportunity Services

D-2, Dayanand Block,

Near Madhuban Chowk

Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092                                              …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 02.01.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 26.10.2018

Judgement Passed on: 30.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Inder Juneja against Corporate Opportunity Services (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that on 02.12.2016, the complainant    Inder Juneja purchased one LED vide invoice no. COS001582 for an amount of Rs. 27,000/-, from the showroom of Corporate Opportunity Services (OP). 

          On the very next day i.e. 03.12.2016, complainant went to their showroom and told them that the said LED was not working properly and made a request for replacement.  He was called by OP on 05.12.2016.  When he reached at the showroom of OP on the said date, they flatly refused to replace the same and further threatened the complainant not to come again for any complaint in respect of said LED. 

          However, the complainant stated that the said LED was under warranty and they cannot escape their liability, but they did not pay any heed towards his request.  They told the complainant that if he wanted to get repair the said LED, he was to pay Rs. 20,000/-, otherwise he should carry his LED back. 

          Thus, it has been stated that this has caused mental pain and agony to the complainant who has suffered great inconvenience from their unprofessional business ethics.  They are said to be deficient in their services as well as cheating and criminal breach of trust. 

          It has further been stated that complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.12.2016 which they refused to accept.  Thus, he has prayed for refund of cost of LED of Rs. 27,000/-; Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation. 

3.       In the written statement filed on behalf of Corporate Opportunity Services (OP), they have stated that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and they have never done any deficiency in rendering its services.

          They have further stated that complainant have concealed the true and material facts.  The complainant after few days of purchasing the said LED from them, came at their shop and told them that while his son was playing in the room, the screen of the said LED got damaged/broken by the ball of his son.  They politely told to the complainant that the warranty card of the LED does not cover any physical damage, it covers only manufacturing defects.  The complainant asked from OP about the proposed cost of repair of the said LED upon which he was told that if the said LED would be shown to them, then only his technical staff would assess the estimate cost of repair.  They have denied that the complainant was ever called on 05.12.2016.

          They have further denied that they have estimated the cost of Rs. 20,000/- for repair.  They have denied other facts also. 

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Mayur Ranjan, partner- M/s. Corporate Opportunity Services.  He has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  From the evidence on record, it has to be seen as to whether there has been any deficiency on the part of Corporate Opportunity Services (OP).  The first and foremost point that arises in this complaint has been with regard to the delivery of LED by the complaina;nt at the showroom of OP.  It is the case of the complainant that he delivered the LED at the showroom of OP on 03.12.2016, this fact has been denied by them. 

          If the evidence of the complainant Inder Juneja is perused, it is noticed that he has placed only invoice of OP showing that he has purchased the LED for an amount of Rs. 27,000/-.  Except this document, there is nothing on record to show that he went to the showroom of OP to substantiate his claim.  If the complainant would have left the LED at the showroom of OP, certainly, they would have given any receipt for having received the said LED.  Not only that, when the complainant have left the LED for repair, he should have taken the receipt for having left the LED at their showroom. 

          His version that he went to the showroom of OP on the very next day i.e. 03.12.2016 is not plausible as he purchased the LED on 02.12.2016.  Therefore, his version cannot be believed at all.  That being so, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP as the complainant has not availed any services as such. 

          The question of deficiency arises only when he would have taken the service of OP.  Since he has not taken the service of OP, the question of any deficiency does not arise.  Even otherwise also, whether the complainant have left the LED at the showroom of OP which fact has been denied by them is a question of fact which requires trial.  Thus, no case of any deficiency has been made out against OP. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.                         

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President