CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.03/2013
SMT. SUMAN SETH
W/O SH. VIVEK SETH
G-64, ASHOK VIHAR,
PHASE-II, DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S I.F.B. INDUSTRIES LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE A-56, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEW DELHI-110020
ALSO AT:-
I.F.B. INDUSTRIES LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE NO.14, TARABOLLA ROAD,
KOLKATTA-700088
- I.F.B. SERVICE CENTRE,
THROUGH MANAGER
SHOP NO.8/9 VARDHAMAN GOLDEN PLAZA,
RANI BAGH ROAD,
NEW DLEHI
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:22.12.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
In brief the case of the complainant is that on 26.07.2012, she took AMC in respect of her IFB machine and paid Rs.5,618/-. The AMC was valid for a period of two years from 26.07.12 to 25.07.14. In the month of October 2012, she found some problem in her machine so she made a call to the OP for maintenance. The complaint was registered vide No.10181875 dated 20.10.12 and she was told that very soon a mechanic from the company will visit the residence of the complainant for repair of the machine. However despite making several calls and requests to OP nobody turned up to repair the machine. It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
It is prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.5,618/- paid for AMC to OP and Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses.
OP in the reply has admitted that a complaint was received from the complainant on 20.10.12. However, it is denied that nobody visited complainant’s house to rectify the defect. It is stated that Mr Beekesh Chaudhary, technician visited complainant residence on 01.11.12 and he asked for AMC papers in order to carry out the repairs but complainant could not provide AMC papers due to which complaint was pending for some time and waiting a long, the same was cancelled for want of AMC papers. It is further stated that concerned officials of the company requested to repair the machine and offered the complainant free maintenance as per contract/AMC but complainant refused as she could not could not provide the AMC papers.
This is denied by complainant in the rejoinder.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is admitted fact that a complaint was received by OPs regarding the defect in the machine. The contention of the OP is that machine could not be repaired for want of AMC papers. Complainant has denied about the visit of any technician for the repair of machine. The onus was on the OP to prove that in fact the technician visited the premises of the complainant for repair of the machine. Nothing prevented OPs to place on record the documents showing the visit of technician to the house of the complainant and refusal of the complainant to show the AMC papers. But OPs have not placed any such documents on record.
During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for OP has stated that they are ready to repair the machine and extend the period of warranty for further two years. However it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that since the machine was not repaired by OPs, the same was disposed of by the complainant hence no useful purpose is served if OPs are directed to repair the machine of the complainant. But it is certain that there has been deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund to complainant Rs.5,618/- paid by him for AMC alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
