Delhi

North East

CC/119/2018

Ashok Kr. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Distributor - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2020

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 119/18

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri R.C. Sharma R/o:- H.No. 1/3013, Street No. 16 Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Shahdara East Delhi, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	Hindustan Distributor B-127, 100 Ft. Road, Hardev Puri Shahdara, Delhi-110093   Vewtron India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. WH 5 Main Road Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase 1, New Delhi-110064	Opposite Parties

 

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

04.07.2018 09.10.2020 09.10.2020

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President(Addl. Charge)

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

1. Grievance of the complainant as culled out in the present complaint is that he had purchased a Vewtron Slim 17 Ltd. Desert cooler manufactured by OP2 from OP1 on 28.06.2017 for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- inclusive of VAT vide invoice no. HD-2009. However, the subject cooler started giving functional problems barely within one month of its purchase for which the complainant registered a complaint with OP2 on 25.07.2017 and an executive of OP2 visited the complainant’s premises and repaired the motor of the cooler but the said cooler went out of order again after fifteen days when it motor was repaired again and subsequently some or the other problem kept arising in the said cooler and it started getting jammed and motor not lifting water for cooling and when the complainant showed it to nearby mechanic he was told that the said cooler is a defective one. On 24.06.2018, at night the subject cooler caught fire and due its burning panel board, the curtains hung near it also caught fire due to which various valuables in the complainant’s got burnt. The complainant went to OP1 and informed it about the said incident but he was only made to run from pillar to post without any satisfactory response and when a mechanic was sent by the OPs to the complainant’s premises, he misbehaved with the complainant and told him that the fire occurred to complainant having lit a candle on top of the cooler. Therefore, feeling harassed and suffering financial, mental and physical difficulty due to inaction on the part of OPs and OPs having sold a defective cooler, the complainant filed the present complaint against OPs praying for issuance of direction against OPs to replace the subject cooler with a new one alongwith compensation of  Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and loss of valuables.
2. Complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice and photographs of cooler and its motor / pump with photographs with curtains and copy of blank warranty card.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 24.07.2018. None appeared on behalf of OP1 despite service effected on 03.08.2018 and therefore was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.02.2019.
4. OP2 entered appearance and filed its written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection of complainant having mentioned no specific cause of action against OP2 nor has given any notice or written information to OP2 pertaining to allege defect in the cooler and that the present complaint has been filed only to derive illegal benefit and pressurize OP2 to exchange the subject cooler with a new one. OP2 contented that no guarantee was given by it with respect to the subject cooler and therefore it is not liable for any allege defect therein. In its defence, OP2 submitted that as per the retail invoice at its foot note, it has been clearly mentioned that “the buyer will in every case examine the goods on taking delivery and thereafter will have no claim against us on account of damage to the goods, shortage in weight, quantity or as to the nature of quality of the goods”. OP2 took the defence that the present complaint has no specific particulars mentioned therein and is related to an accident case of candle burn due to negligence of the complainant and therefore is liable to be dismissed with cost. On merits OP2 resisted the complaint on grounds that the complainant never registered any complaint regarding the subject cooler with it nor was the same ever repaired by any of the employee of OP2 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the defence so taken.  
5. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant in reassertion of his grievance against OPs.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP2 sworn by its authorized representative duly appointed vide Board Resolution 22.08.2018.
7. Written arguments were filed by both parties to buttress to their respective grievance / defence.
8. We have heard the argument addressed by the complainant in person and have examined the documents placed on record. During the course of oral arguments, complainant made a voluntary statement that the subject cooler caught fire due to short circuit. Even otherwise barring the purchase invoice and photographs of cooler and curtain, the complainant has not placed on record any document by way of any proof of damage or any correspondence pertaining to damage claimed. Even on merits, the complainant has utterly failed to prove and establish the role of OP2 in the complaint except for filing photographs of the cooler and curtain which are of no consequence since factum of purchase of the subject cooler is not in dispute and curtains do not convey any proof or evidence of the subject cooler having caught fire and / or burnt the curtains. Complainant has also failed to place on record any proof of submission of documents with OP2 pertaining to damage claim or any acknowledgement of receipt thereof or proof of the allegedly damaged cooler before this Forum. In our view therefore, even on merits, the complainant has failed to prove his own averments. The Hon'ble National Commission in Pushpa Bhutani Vs HUDA, Hissar (2006) 3 CPR 239 held that a complaint cannot be allowed if complainant is unable to prove his averments and also held in Shahenn Khan Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2006) 3 CPR 15 (NC) that best evidence should not be withheld from Forum while dealing with a claim of deficiency in service regarding settlement of insurance claim.
9.  We therefore do not find any merits in the present complaint and following the principle laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in Pushpa Bhutani Vs. HUDA, Hisar (2006) 3 CPR 239 (NC) and Shahenn Khan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2006) 3 CPR 15 (NC), dismiss the present complaint as the complainant has been unable to prove his own averments and has withheld his best evidence from the Forum which could or may have supported his allegations against the OPs.
10.   Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on  09.10.2020

(Arun Kumar Arya)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member