Delhi

East Delhi

CC/451/2015

VINOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

EKTA ELECTRONIC - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2019

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. 451/15

 

Shri Vinod Kumar

S/o Late Shri Rohtas Singh

R/o B-35, New Govindpura, Street No. 03,

Near Gandhi Park, Delhi- 110051

                                                               ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. M/s Ekta Electronics

54, Khuregi Khas Main Road

Delhi- 110031

 

2. Eltech Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

221, first Floor, Phase-3 Okhla Industrial Estates,

Delhi- 110031

(Throught its Managers/Director/AR)

 

3. Eltech Applicances Pvt. Ltd.

ETA Star House, No. 71/63,

Third Floor, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam,

Chennai

(Through Its Manager/ Director/AR)

                             …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 26.06.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 05.07.2019

Judgement Passed on: 08.07.2019

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 Vinod Kumar, the  complainant against, M/s Ekta Electronics, OP-1; Eltech Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,        OP-2; and  Eltech Applicances Pvt. Ltd., OP-3 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant visited OP-1 to purchase Air Conditioner, where he was convinced by the executive of OP-1 to buy VESTAR AC 1.5 TON model VA18TBF, citing the advanced futures and efficiency alongwith post sale services. The complainant purchased the said Air Conditioner on 24.07.2014 for Rs. 20,500/-, which had one year warranty with annual free service. The complainant has stated that after 8 to 9 months, there was problem with cooling, as the cooling coil had got damaged and heavy machinery noise, thus, rendering it unusable. Complaints were made by the complainant on 28.04.2012 vide complaint no. 21504280245; another complaint dated 01.05.2015 with complaint no. 21505110176 and lastly on 17.05.2015 for which complaint no. 21505170094 was issued. It has been stated that OP-2 and OP-3 assured the complainant that the problem as reported would be rectified, however, they failed to do so.

            Despite several complaints personally as well as telephonically, the Air Conditioner was not repaired due to which the complainant had to suffer great humiliation, loss of reputation and mental agony. The complainant has also stated that OP-1, being the retailer and OP-2 and OP-3 being the manufacturer and service provider were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as they have failed to replace/ repair the defective Air Conditioner.

Hence, the present complaint with prayer for directions to OPs to return the cost of the Air Conditioner i.e. Rs. 20,500/- alongwith interest @24% per annum Rs. 40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony harassment and pain and Rs. 28,000/- as litigation charges.

            Copy of invoice issued by OP-1 of dated 24.07.2014, copy of email dated 14.05.2015 written by complainant alongwith reply of OP-2 via email and copy of warranty card of the Air Conditioner have been annexed with the complaint.

Written Statement was filed by OP-2 and OP-3 upon service of notice, where they have taken several pleas in their defence, such as, there was no cause of action against the OPs; the technicians had promptly attended all the complaints of the complainant. It was denied that the Air Conditioner was not working properly. They have submitted that the complainant had insisted on changing the cooling coils, which were changed on 22.05.2015 for the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter no complaint has been received. They have also submitted that the complainant had not placed any technical/ expert report in support of his allegation. Thus, there was no deficiency in services on their part as they have been providing and were willing to provide the services as per warranty terms and conditions. It was further submitted that the first complaint received on 01.05.2015 was attended and it was found that the Air Conditioner was working in excellent condition without any abnormal noise. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied with prayer of dismissal of the same with exemplary cost.

They have annexed job sheet dated 01.05.2015 with their Written Statement.

In Rejoinder to the Written Statement filed on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3, the complainant has denied all the submissions made by them and has reaffirmed the contents of his complaint. He has stated that the defect in Air Conditioner could not be removed despite several visits.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has reiterated the contents of his complaint and has relied upon retail invoice issued by OP-1 as Ex. CW1/1; warranty card as Ex. CW1/2.

Shri Sandeep Kumar, Authorized Representative of Vestar was examined on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3. He has also narrated the facts mentioned in their Written Statement and has got exhibited copy of job sheet dated 22.05.2015 as Ex. RW2/1.

We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for Complainant and             Ld. Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3. Perusal of the file reveals that the complainant was aggrieved by the non-working of the Air Conditioner, which has been denied by OP-2 and OP-3. In support of their averment OP-2 and OP-3 have filed job sheet dated 01.05.2015 i.e. Ex. RW2/1, which shows that the complaint made on 28.04.2015 was attended on 01.05.2015 and the date of completion was 22.05.2015. The complaint was with respect to “Cooling coil leak” and the action taken was “Cooling coil replace and gas charge”. At the same time, it also bears under the head technician remarks “Cooling coil replaced and gas charged but customer refuse to signature”. As per the allegations made by the complainant the last complaint was made on 17.05.2015 and thereafter no complaint was ever registered with OP-2 and OP-3. On the other hand, the complainant has not placed any document on record to show that there was still some defect in the Air Conditioner, the only documents in support of his allegation is the email dated 06.05.2015, where he has stated “I want to change my Air Conditioner ”.

It is settled principle of law that the complaint has to stand on its own feet, whereas in the instant case the complainant has miserably failed to show that there was any deficiency on the part of OP-2 and OP-3. As far as OP-1 is concerned, they are mere retailer, and the problem as alleged by the complainant arose after 8 to 9 months. So, they also cannot be held liable for deficiency in services.

            Therefore, from the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

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