Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1143/2014

RUBIKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ELECTROLUX COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC No.1143/ 2014:

 

In the matter of:

Smt. RupikaTandon

W/o. Sh.Sanjay Tandon

R/o. G - 348, PreetVihar,

Delhi – 110 092

Complainant

Vs

1. Electrolux Company

Branch Office At:

Office of Authorized Service Centre

C – 152, Ground Floor,

Industrial Area Okhla Phase-I,

•  

(Through its Prop./HOD/Manager)

 

2. M/s. P.E. Electronics Ltd.

Auto Car Compound Adalat Road,

Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India

(Through its Director/ A.R./Manager)

 

3. NSA Tradex Private Ltd.

Franchisee of Star CJ Network India Ltd.

Khasra Nos. (47//19/2, 10/1, 11/2/1, 12/12/2, 19/2, 20/1),

Village Taj Nagar, Tehsil Farrukhnagar,

Gurgaon (Haryana)

Regd. Office At:

S – 410, Greater Kailash, Part – II,

New Delhi – 110 048

•  

 

Date of Admission :22/12/2014

                                                                                    Date of Order          :05/12/2015

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra, Member :

Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member :

             The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 20/07/2014 the complainant purchased an Electrolux Microwave Oven 20L Model GRILL M/O G20 M WW- CG for Rs.5,500/-.  It is alleged that from the very next day it stopped working and is in dead condition for unknown reasons.  The matter was immediately reported to the respondent.  The complaint was attended after several days but the alleged defects could not be rectified. Repeated complaints & communications for rectification of the alleged defect were of no consequence.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.12,500/-, the cost of the microwave oven, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain & agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.

Respondents were served through notice but none put up appearance and they were ordered to be proceeded exparte vide order dated 05/08/2015.

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case has not been controverted by the respondents.

Heard and perused the record.

It is evident from the perusal of the copy of the Retail Invoice No.201407190325 dated 19/07/2014, copy of which is enclosed as Paper 8 with the complaint, that theactual cost of the Electrolux Microwave Oven 20L Model GRILL M/O G20 M WW- CGpurchased by the complainant was Rs.5,295.03 and VAT/CST thereon was Rs.694.97, thus, making total invoice amount of Rs.5,990/-.  In Para 2 of the complaint the complainant has stated the cost of the microwave oven in question as Rs.5,500/- but in the prayer clause she has soughtrefund of Rs.12,500/- towards the cost of the said microwave oven. The mistake in the prayer clause is not inadvertent as she has raised a claim of Rs.82,500/- in all which besides including the prayer for the refund of Rs.12,500/- towards the cost of the microwave oven she has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for pain & agony suffered by her and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.  This leaves no room for doubt that the discrepancy is deliberate and she has not approached this Forum with a clear intention.Further, it is evident from the jobsheets dated 12/09/2014 and 05/10/2014 that on both occasions microwave oven was having the problem of Wiring and the Power PCB and the Service Engineer had recommended for the change of wiring and the Power PCB on the Jobsheet dated 05/10/2014 but they have not rectified the said defects. On the reverse of the jobsheet dated 12/09/2014 the complainant has appended a note countersigned by the Service Engineer of the respondent that the Microwave oven is not working despite third visit of the Service Engineer to rectify thedefects therein.  She has also requested them to replace it immediately. This leaves no room for doubt that the said oven was inherently defective and it was obligatory on the part of the Respondent Nos. I &II to have removed the defects that had arisen in the product during the warranty period and if the same were beyond repairs they should have replaced the product or refundedits cost to her when it had arrived at a final conclusion that the reported defects in the microwave were beyond repairs.Besides this the allegations with regard to the defects reported in the microwave oven reaffirmed by the complainant on oath in her affidavit filed in evidence have also not been controverted by the respondents.  As such the same are taken to be true and are acceptable to us.

Complainant has failed to make out any case against the Respondent No.III.  As such it is exonerated from any liability towards the complainant.

Taking into consideration the discussion and observations made supra, we are of the view that though the Respondent Nos. I & II were deficient in providing services to the complainant but it is also a proved fact that the complainant has also not approached this Forum with clean hands. In these circumstances, we direct the Respondent Nos. I& II, jointly or severally, to refund Rs.5,295/-,  the cost of the microwave oven to the complainant, the VAT/CST of Rs.694.97 charged thereon cannot be refunded to her as the same has been deposited in the Govt.Treasury.  No order as to costs.The Complainant shall return the old Microwave Ovento the respondents on receiving the amount from them.

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                                       (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                                                                  President