Delhi

East Delhi

CC/428/2015

KAMLA PANDAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAZRAT VISION - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          428/ 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  08/07/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 31/08/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          31/08/2017   

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mrs. Kamla Pandey, 60 years   

W/o Sh. Manmohan Pandey

R/o 35, Plot no. 105, Shivalik Apptt.

I P Extn. Delhi 110092………………………..……….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Hazrat Vision

19-20, Lalita Park Laxmi Nagar

Main Vikas Marg  Delhi 110092

 

2-Manager

M/s Mirc Electronics Ltd ( As Onida)

Onida House, G1 MIDC

Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri East, Mumbai 400093……………….………………………  Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                    

Complainant purchased ONIDA washing machine for a sum of Rs 9600/-from OP1 on 02/07/2013. The said washing machine had two years warranty (Ex.CW1/1). The washing machine developed problem of water leakage after some months so complainant lodged complaint to OP1 vide complaint no. 15030686380013. Mechanic attended complaint, but did not rectify the problem, so again complaint was lodged with OP1, but no one came to rectify defect. So complainant lodged complaint to OP2 and OP1 also as defects occurred in warranty tenure. When no one attended complaint even from OP2, filed this complaint and claimed harassment charges Rs 50,000/- with litigation charges accordingly.  

Notices were served. OP2 jointly submitted their written statement for OP1 also. It was admitted that the said washing machine was purchased from OP1 and was under warranty of two years ie up to 01/07/2015. It was admitted that problem of water leakage occurred in warranty tenure as per complaint no. 15030686380013 and service engineer attended complaint on 11/03/2015 and replaced spin motor with WSA on 11/03/2015 (Ex. OPR-1). It was admitted that there was delay of one week as some related parts were not available in their warehouse and as soon as part was available, problem was rectified (Ex. OP R-2).

OP also stated that during warranty tenure, if any part become defective, the said part had to be replaced free of cost and the same was done in this case also. OP had denied any complaint was lodged by complainant after expiry of warranty tenure or had ever taken extended warranty for the said washing machine.

Rejoinder and affidavit was filed by the complainant where complainant had stated on affidavit and affirmed on oath that her all the facts and evidences were correct and true and were on record.  OP had also submitted their evidences through affidavit filed by Mr. Naresh Tomar, authorized representative from M/s Adonis Electronics Ltd., New Delhi who stated that the said washing machine did not had any complaint up to the end of warranty tenure, but had water leakage problem during the end of warranty tenure and the spin motor and WSA was replaced. So it was stated that refund as claimed by the complainant was not admissible as there was no manufacturing defect from beginning and problem was rectified by replacing the spin motor.         

 

Arguments were heard from the complainant’s authorized person as her husband, but OP did not put their appearance on the date of arguments. So, file was perused and order was reserved.

We have perused all the facts and evidences filed by complainant and evidence by OP on affidavit. It was evident that the said washing machine was purchased on 02/07/2013 and washing machine developed water leakage problem on 04/03/2015 ie within warranty period.

It was also admitted by OP2 that the said washing machine developed water leakage problem during warranty tenure, so both the parts as spin motor and WSA was replaced within time. It was stated by OP2 that delay of one week was neither intentional nor negligence as defective parts were not available at that time and as soon as parts were made available, were replaced free of cost within standard warranty. It was also evident that complaint was attended by service engineer and there was no further complaint was ever lodged by the complainant.

      

Hence, we come to the conclusion that complaint has no merit and no deficiency in services against OP1 and 2 was proved by the complainant as OP1 being a seller of the product and OP2 is a manufacturer. So, no deficiency was proved against OPs.

 

Hence, we come to the conclusion that this complaint deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Rules and file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                       Shri Sukhdev Singh President