Delhi

East Delhi

CC/665/2013

NITISH NAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULDEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2013

ORDER

           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi

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

Consumer complaint no.   665/2013

In matter of

Sh Nitish Nagar, adult

Through SPA- Sh Tara Chand Nagar

R/o-HN.  E-83, Gazipur Village,

Delhi 110092…………………….……………………………………………..…………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                             Vs

1-Mr Kuldeep Singh

Pro. - M/s National Hearing Care Centre,

410/1, Main Vikas Marg,

Opp. Karekarduma Metro Stn., Delhi- 110092

 

Also at -Mr Kuldeep Singh

C-488, 2^nd Floor, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, UP

 

2- The Regional Manager,

Phoenax India Pvt. Ltd.

C- 98, 4rth Floor, Lajpat NagarI, New Delhi

 

3-The Manager,

Phoenax India Pvt. Ltd

104, Plijit Plaza, Plot no 67, Sec. 11,

CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614, Maharastra. ……………………….………….….Respondents 

                                                                                                      

                                                                                                       Date of Institution - 14/08/2013

                                                                                                       Date of Order         -22/02/2016                                                                                                                                                            

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member : 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                            

Mr Nitis Nagar who has hearing problem, purchased two hearing machines from opponent 1. The hearing machines cost him Rs 35,000/- which he paid to the opponent vide receipt no. 088/dated 24/08/2012. The model no. of right ear was 1228HYOKX and of left ear was 1229HYo2Y. It was assured by the opponent that the said hearing machines are defect free and had given two year guarantee. As per complainant, the said hearing machine developed some defect and resulted hearing problem to complainant. He visited opponent 1 and made complaint about the machine. The opponent 1 advised complainant to contact OP2 the authorized service centre. OP2 said that OP 3 will replace the machine if any manufacturing defect is found. The complainant kept visiting OP 1 and 2 for removal of defect but he did not get any result.

 

The complainant suffered huge financial loss and harassment as he was not able to perform his duty properly. He claimed for the refund of amount Rs 35,000/- besides he also claimed Rs 70,000/- as compensation for harassment for mental pain and agony suffered by him. In addition to this, he also claimed Rs 30,000/- for loss of work and Rs 10,000/- as litigation charges.

 

Notices were served to OPs. OP1 filed his written statement and denied all the allegations of complaint. The OP1 admitted that the said hearing machine was sold by him and OP2 and 3 are responsible for any manufacturing defect. OP1 stated that the machine was of good quality and had no manufacturing defects. Complainant was using it for long time without any complaint. OP1 stated that no assurance for guarantee was ever given to complainant.   

 

OP 2 also received notice and appeared in person. After receiving complaint copy, no written statement was filed him. Complainant file replication to written statement filed by OP1 and later authorized his power of attorney to Tara Chand Nagar who filed evidences on affidavit. Evidences which is uncontroveted and are on record. 

 

Taking the facts and evidences on oath which is uncontroverted on record. This fact is admitted that the said hearing machines were purchased by the complainant from OP1. During one year, problem occurred in hearing machine. The defects could not be removed by respondent, when  it was still under warranty. This amounts to deficiency in service.

The allegation regarding inconvenience caused are not denied without proper hearing it is difficult to discharge the function in the office and other wise.

We allow this complaint. The respondents are directed to refund Rs 35,000/- to complainant along with 9 % interest from the date of filing of this complaint till paid. We also award compensation of Rs 10,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs 5000/- as cost of litigation. All the said amount be paid within 45 days from the date of order. If not paid, then the complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest on entire awarded amount till paid. The order copy be sent to parties as per rules.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                                              Sh. N A Zaidi - President