Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/729

Manhunt Consulting - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 729/14

MANHUNT CONSULTING

THOUGHT ITS PARTNER GAURAV JAIN

50, COMMUNITY CENTRE,

OFFICE NO. 103, FIRST FLOOR,

NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE 1

NEW DELHI-110028                                      Complainant     

 

VERSUS

1. HITACHI INDIA PVT LTD

(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL OFFICER)

43, WHS, FURNITURE BLOCK

KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-15

2. CLIMATE CONTROL

      (THROUGH ITS PROPREITER)

      ER-2, INDERPURI, MAIN MARKET,

      NEW DELHI-110012

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ..…Opposite  Parties            

 

O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The

facts as alleged in the complaint are that he had purchased one window A.C. (2 TON) make Hitachi from OP-2 on 09.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 34,500 and paid Rs. 20,000/- through cheque and remaining amount of Rs. 14,500/- by cash. The OP-2 told that A.C along with receipt and warranty card would be delivered at the office of complainant. The OP-2 delivered A.C. at the office of complainant on 09.05.2014 but without receipt and warranty card. The complainant immediately telephoned for receipt and warranty card but was told that same could be collected from the shop of OP-2. It is the case of complainant that in the last week of May, 2014 the A.C. started creating problem and was also not cooling well. The OP-2 was contacted in this regard whereupon the OP-2 told complainant to call customer care of Hitachi company where complainant was told that A.C. was of year 2009 and was beyond repair/service. In this way OP-2 cheated complainant by providing old and faulty product. The complainant sent legal notice on 12.09.2014 to OP to resolve the problem by replacing A.C. but all in vain. Hence the present complaint.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  After notice  OP-1 appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objection that complainant has deliberately concealed various material facts from this court, also that product in question was purchased for use of business/commercial purpose and as such complainant was not a consumer. Further the product in question was purchased in 2014 but as per customer it was a product of the year 2009. However the complainant could not file cogent evidence to establish that product purchased in 2014 was of the year 2009. On merits OP-1 denied the contents of complaint. This OP-1 was later given up by complainant on 02.01.2017. OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte as he did not put in appearance despite service.

         The complainant filed rejoinder to W.S. of OP-1 and denied the contents of reply and reaffirmed the contents of complaint.

                                                                                    The complainant led ex-parte evidence by filing affidavit. He exhibited CW1/A Bank statement, CW1/B legal notice, CW1/C Postal receipt and CW1/D A.D. card.

           We have heard counsel for complainant and have also perused the record.

           Strangely enough the complainant has not placed on record invoice receipt regarding purchase of product involved in the present case.

            He has simply filed statement of account which indicates that on 13.05.2014 a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to OP-2 by way of cheque no. 500860. Obviously this payment does not show that this amount was paid by complainant to OP-2 for the purchase of A.C. in question. Further there is no proof of payment of cash amount of Rs. 14,500/-. The complainant has also failed to file any document regarding fault of A.C. Resultantly the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate the contents of complaint.

            Accordingly, the complaint being without any merit is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

  Announced this___18TH___ day of ___ ______ 2019.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                   (K.S. MOHI)                        

MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT