Delhi

North East

CC/230/2023

Ms. Neha Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 230/23

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Neha Jain W/o Sh. Gagan Jain, R/o A339,Ground Floor, Amar Park, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201011	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s LG Electronics India Ltd., A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044   Gupta Electro World, Through its Proprietor, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Ground Floor, 1/9024, Old No. 1551/1, Main Babar Pur Road, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, East Delhi, Delhi-110032	Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

1. The case of the Complainant is that she purchased a refrigerator from Opposite Party No.2 on 01.08.21 for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with one year warranty for refrigerator and 10 years for compressor. The Complainant also obtained AMC from Opposite Party No.1 for the period 02.08.22 to 01.08.26 on paying Rs. 10,573/- on 14.07.22 which covers free of cost repair facility and quick services. The Complainant stated that from the date of purchase the said refrigerator was not working properly. The Complainant stated that during pendency of AMC the said refrigerator stopped working and Complainant intimated Opposite Party No.1 telephonically on various dates and Complainant receive message containing complaint/reference no. RNB230614009508 on 16.06.23 but no satisfactory response was given by Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant also approached Opposite Party No.2 several times requesting for replacement of said refrigerator but of no use and Opposite Party No.2 itself wrote an email dated 16.06.23 to Opposite Party No.1 requesting for replacement of said refrigerator. The Complainant stated that after the telephonic complaint made by Complainant to Opposite Party No.1, no any engineer visited to inspect the said refrigerator. The Complainant stated that as proper response was not received from Opposite Parties, Complainant was constrained to purchase another refrigerator by spending Rs. 12,000/-. Hence this shows deficiency on behalf of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has prayed for the cost of the refrigerator in question of Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 10,573/- as charged by the Opposite Party No. 1 towards the cost of AMC. She has also prayed for Rs. 12,000/- i.e. cost of the another refrigerator which was purchased due to the deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 15,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. As per Section 34  of The Consumer Protection Act , 2019 

34 Jurdiction of District Commission (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints Where the value of the goods or services paid as consideratin does not exceed one crore rupees:

 Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

 (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or

 (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given or

(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) The complainant resides or personally works for gain.

                        

3. In the present case, the Complainant is residing in Ghaziabad and Opposite Party No.1 is having office at Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 from whom the AMC for the said refrigerator was taken on 14.07.22 for the period of 02.08.22 to 01.08.26. So, both the parties do not fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
4.  The Opposite Party No.2 in only the pro forma party from which the Complainant purchased Refrigerator on 01.08.21. The Complainant does not have any complaint regarding deficiency in service against Opposite Party No.2. Further, as per Complainant, during the pendency of AMC, the said refrigerator stopped working and she intimated Opposite Party No.1 telephonically on various dates and Complainant received message from Opposite Party No.1 on 16.06.23 but no satisfactory response was given by the Opposite Party No.1, hence, the cause of action was also arised in Ghaziabad where the Complainant is residing.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed as the same is not fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission as per Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
6. Order announced on 21.09.23.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain)       Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)              President