DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 244/2014
Date of Institution- 11/03/2014
Order reserved on - 22/08/2016
Date of Order - 26/08/2016
In matter of
Mr Mahesh Gupta, adult
S/o Late Sh. Goverdhan Dass
R/o-111,A, New Lahore,
Shastri Nagar, New Delhi 110031………………………..………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt Ltd
2nd Floor, Vikas Marg,
Delhi -110092
2-M/s Sony India Pvt Ltd
Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092……………….….…………………………………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate-Jogesh Gupta
Opponents Advocate- Md Sweta Kapoor-
Corum- 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 a Sony PSP (Go) from OP for a sum of Rs 12,990/- on 1st May 2011 with one year warranty. After some time the PSP had some problem so complainant took to service station at OP2 and paid a sum of Rs 3897/- for getting a new PSP from OP2 vide reference no. 13765083. The said product could not be delivered to complainant in time and the same was lying with OP2.
When complainant did not get any response from OP2, filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of the product a sum of Rs 12,990/-with extra payment of Rs 3897/- paid to OP2. He had also claimed compensation of a sum of Rs 50,000/- and litigation charges Rs 11000/-.
After scrutiny of complaint, notices were issued on the given address. As the addresses were not complete, so re-notices were sent. OP1 put up their appearance and submitted its written statement. OP submitted that complainant had used its product without any problem for over one year and no complaint.
Complainant approached to service station/OP2 after expiry of warranty period.
Complainant came to OP2 on 08/01/2013 for “Games not getting installed” vide job card no. 301065796. As the product’s cost was very high, so OP 2 replaced the part by refurbished sets. The refurbished products were those products which are used for demonstration in showrooms. After electric testing and verification, parts are used and complainants are informed too.
All such products have a warranty of one year from the date of replacement. But only 30% charges are taken from the customers as original parts have more cost then the replaced parts.
As per OP1, complainant again made complaint for the same defect, but did not bring the product to OP2 for demonstration of problem/defect. OP stated that they were ready to replace the PSP with refurbished part, but complainant did not come nor brought the product. So the allegation of defective service and unfair trade practice was a wrong allegation and was denied in total.
OP relied on citation of NCDRC in Punjab Tractors Ltd vs Vir Pratap(1997)IICPJ 81(NC) where it was held that concrete evidence had to be produced by the complainant to prove the deficiency of OP and in absence of this, complainant was not entitled for any relief. Here also, complainant had not produced any such evidence to prove deficiency of OP. Hence, this complaint is devoid of any merit, so deserves to be dismissed. The complaint is dismissed without cost.
The copy of his order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs -Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
