Delhi

North East

CC/270/2014

Arun Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.N. Aggarwal - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 270/14

 

In the matter of:

	Arun Sharma S/o Satya Pal Singh R/o 158/2, Jammu Mohalla, Maujpur Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	H.N. Aggarwal D-5/1, Lal Quarter, Krishna Nagar Delhi-110051. Also at:- 513/26, Main Road (Near Police Station), Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.   Usha International Ltd Surya Kiran Building 19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi-110001.	Opposite parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

17.07.2014 04.12.2019 04.12.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts in the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased an Usha Wonder Stitch sewing machine manufactured by OP2 from OP1 dealer on 30.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 9,480/-. However, OP1 did not issue the invoice when asked for and told the complainant that the bill was already put in the packed machine. But on opening the packing of machine, the complainant did not find the invoice and immediately contacted OP1 which assured the complainant that the invoice shall be sent to him soon. However, no representative was sent by OP1 and thereafter the complainant left for Haridwar for 10 days from 09.06.2014 to 19.06.2014 and on return, again asked OP1 about the bill and demo installation. Thereafter, OP1 sent his executive to complainant’s residence the next day who on checking the machine found assembly problem and a crack in it with a screw missing. Complainant asked OP1 to replace the defective machine but OP1 asked him to contact him OP2 manufacturer. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint against the OPs praying for issuance of directions against them to refund the cost of sewing machine i.e. Rs. 9,480/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and Rs. 2500/- towards litigation charges.

Complainant has attached copy of invoice book no. 83/ SR No. 8233 dated 30.05.2016 in the name of Yuganshu Dixit.

On clarification sought by this Forum to show why the bill for the said machine was in the name of the son of the complainant and documents to show any defects therein, complainant placed on record copy of school identification and medical facility card with certificates to established his relationship with the person in whose name the invoice was generated by OP1 as being that of father and son.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 03.09.2014. OP2 entered appearance and filed its written statement and raised preliminary objection of complaint being non maintainable as the bill annexed therewith is bearing date of sale as 30.05.2016 and therefore its veracity is required to be ascertained before adjudication of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP1 failed to appear despite service effected in October 2015 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Rejoinder to written statement of OP2 was filed by the complainant in rebuttal in which he submitted that he was misled and harassed by OPs and got no satisfactory result and therefore had to file the present complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant and OP2.
5. Written arguments were filed by complainant urging the relief claim on grounds that OP1 issued an incorrect bill dated 30.05.2016 instead on actual date of purchase i.e. 30.05.2014 and sold a defective sewing machine with improper assembly, crack and a screw missing therein for which acts OP1 was deficient in service and therefore complainant was entitled to seek refund for the defective machine.
6. We have heard the arguments addressed by complainant and OP2 and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

To bring the rival contention in the focus most pertinently related to the date of the invoice and the condition of the sewing machine, it is evident that for a case filed in July 2014 in grievance of the sewing machine sold in May 2014, it is impossible that the machine was purchased in May 2016 as per the invoice issued by OP1 and therefore the error of date therein by OP1 is apparent and glaring defect which has been questioned by OP2 also fornon- maintainability of the complaint. Further complainant has alleged poor assembly, cracks and screw missing in the said machine which in our considered view is fault of OP1. Therefore, appreciating the case in entirety, we are of the opinion that a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of OP1 alone is made out for issuing incorrect bill and for faulty installation/assembly of the sewing machine in question. The Hon’ble National Commission in Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd vsFabinox India Pvt Ltd (2008) II CPJ 372 (NC) held the installer of the machine in complainant’s premises and not the manufacturer thereof liable for deficiency in service, thereby exonerating the manufacturer.

Further for no rebuttal to the allegation of complainant due to absence of OP1, the same are stands established against it. We therefore partly allowed the complaint but only against OP1 and direct OP1 to refund the cost of sewing machine i.e. Rs. 9,480/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.

7.  Let the order be complied by OP1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on  04.12.2019

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member