Delhi

East Delhi

CC/774/2014

KUMKUM - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAISER ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       774 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 25/08/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                08/08/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         10/08/2017  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

 

Mrs. Kumkum, adult 

D/o Late Prem Lal

R/o- 59D, Pkt 6, Old MIG Flats,

Mayur Vihar Phase III, Delhi 110091……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-The Partner / Proprietor

 M/s Kaisar Electronics

Authorised Service Centre

47A, Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

2-The Partner / Proprietor

The Manager,

M/s Glaciar Services, Authorised Service Centre

L 95, FF, Vijay Vihar,

Sec. 4, Rohini, Delhi 110085

 

3- The Chairman / Managing Director,

M/s P E Electronics Ltd.

Corporate Sector, 5^th Floor,

Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400059………………  Opponents

 

Quorum  -      Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                    

                      

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case –

Complainant purchased front loading washing machine having model Salsa Care VVM EF70SCWH-CME-white with serial no. 780610271511300484 from M/s Vijay Sales, at Preet Vihar Delhi for a sum of Rs 19900/-and was manufactured by OP3 as annexed Annexure 1.  

Complainant took AMC from OP1 from 30/10/2013 to 29/10/2014 as Annexure 2. OP2 was authorized service centre of OP3. It was stated that the said washing machine vaccum rubber got exploded from the door on 11/04/2014 so a complaint was lodged with OP2. The mechanic came at her residence and inspected the washing machine on 12/04/2014, but refused to replace the vaccum rubber of the door and demanded Rs 1800/- for replacing it. When it was asked to show whether rubber parts were under AMC, mechanic went away and complaint no. EDEL11044140148 was closed on 13/04/2014.

 

Complainant again lodged complaint on 23/04/2014vide complaint no. EDEL2304140154 and none came to rectify the problem, so complaint again made several complaints up to April 2014, but none of the complaints were attended. Thereafter she sent a email to OP3 and also sent legal notice on 03/08/2014 as marked Annexure 4. Later one mechanic came and told that rubber parts were not in AMC. Hence, complainant felt cheated by OPs, so filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs 2 lakh for harassment and refund of AMC charges Rs 2200/- with Rs 3000/- as washer man charges. She also claimed refund of the cost of the machine.  

 

Notices were issued. OPs did not file their written statement or put their evidence despite of giving ample opportunities. When no response was received, complainant asked for publication in daily newspaper. Publication was done in English daily “The Statesman” dated 16/10/2016. Thus, OPs were proceeded Ex Parte. Thereafter, complainant submitted Ex parte Evidence on affidavit where she stated on oath that all the facts were correctly submitted and OP had failed to provide services in AMC tenure.  

 

Arguments were heard from complainant’s counsel. File was perused and order reserved.  

 

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was noted that complainant had taken AMC from OP2 from 30/10/2013 for one year. Ex Parte evidence was submitted on affidavit, but did not submit any evidence of cash invoice and warranty card of washing machine.  

 

It is true that the said washing machine was under AMC, but no AMC document was on record to see whether rubber parts were also covered under AMC. It is to be considered that washing machines or any such goods have one year standard warranty and here in this case, she had purchased her machine on 20/02/2011 and AMC was taken from 30/10/2013, meaning hereby the tenure of warranty did not continue. AMC covers machinery and its parts with other electrical and metallic accessories, but not rubber parts. In this complaint, main allegation against OP2 was non replacement of vaccum rubber part fitted around the door of the washing machine.   There was no deficiency of services on the part of OP2 and 3.

 

Hence, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit so deserve to be dismissed. That being so the complaint is dismissed without any order to cost.  

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                             Shri Sukhdev Singh - President