MITHLESH KR filed a consumer case on 17 Nov 2016 against HAZRAT VISION in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/593/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Apr 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 593/ 2015
Date of Institution 12/08/2015
Order Reserved on 17/11/2016
Date of Order 21/11/2016
In matter of
Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Misra , adult
S/o Sh Pradyuman Kumar Misra
R/o 23,First Floor, J&K Block
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092……………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s Hazrat Vision
19-20, Lalita Park Laxmi Nagar
Main Vikas Marg Delhi 110092
2-M/s Adonis Electronics Pvt Ltd.
84, Defense Enclave, Delhi 110092
3-M/s Mirc Electronics Ltd ( As Onida)
Onida House, H1 MIDC
Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai 400093……………….……………………… Opponents
Complainant……………………………………Puneet Tandon
Opponent 1 ……....……………………………Nemo
Opponent 2&3…………………………………Ashutosh Lal
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased ONIDA split Ac vide product code AC-S 18SMT7N,for a sum of Rs 40,500/- from OP1 on 20/04/2015. The said Ac was financed by Bajaj Finance Ltd for monthly EMI of Rs 5063/- per month for 8 months marked here as CW1/1. The said AC developed swing problem after three months and complainant lodged complaint to OP2 vide job sheet dated 30/07/2015 noted problem as “Swing Motor Dead”. The attending mechanic could not rectify the defect. Complainant stated that he could not utilize the services of the AC in the month of summer season. None-rectifying the problem by OP2, when AC was under standard warranty of one year, amount to grave deficiency of services by OP2, who was an authorized service centre of OP 3. So, complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of the AC Rs 40,500/- with Rs 70,000/-compensation for harassment and mental agony. He also claimed Rs 45,000/-litigation charges.
Notices were served. OP2 & 3 jointly submitted their written statement. OP1 did not submit its written statement and evidence. OP3 admitted that the said AC was purchased from OP1 and was under warranty up to 19/04/2016. OP stated that swing motor was not properly adjusted due to electricity fluctuations. The swing motor was adjusted and AC was functioning well as marked RW1/1 and the same problem was again rectified marked as RW1/2. When third time same problem occurred, service engineer went to replace the swing motor, but complainant refused and did not allow engineer to work as marked here RW1/3. OP also stated that the swing machine developed some problem does not mean that the whole AC had manufacturing defect. So, the complaint was false and to be dismissed. Complainant filed rejoinder and evidences on affidavit and OP also submitted their evidences on affidavit which were on record.
Arguments were heard 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 AC was purchased on 20/04/2014 and within one month of its working, swing machine developed problems. It was also admitted by OP3 that the said swing machine developed defects within standard warranty which was due to electricity fluctuations and needed adjustment. Despite of lodging complaints, defects were not rectified fully. It was also seen that the complainant had to remain without AC utility in summer season. We have also gone through the 3rd job sheet marked as RW1/3 dated 21/07/2015 with remark as “No response by customer, so call cancelled”. It was observed that all the three job sheets were prepared at the same time with same handwriting and no where sign. were taken from complainant. It was also evident that complaint was attended at the same time in all three job sheets by service engineer, which itself looks doubtful.
Hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant has proved deficiency in services against OP 2 and 3. As OP1 was a seller, so there were no allegations against him.
We allow this complaint and pass the following order—
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur (Dr) P N Tiwari
Member Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.