| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.818/2008 Shri Amit Goyal S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Goyal R/o 15/139, Akkawali Gali, Noori Darwaja, Agra ….Complainant Versus M/s Lodhi Sports Through its proprietor, Sh. Ravi Jain Lodhi Colony, 7, Main Market (Near P.N.B.) New Delhi- 43 ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 12.12.2008 Date of Order : 21.02.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - On the strength of his complaint, the Complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay the Complainant Rs.7,14,931/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @18% or in the alternative to direct OP to replace the defective machine, in which case the Complainant shall give up the claim of Rs.2,78,606/- out of Rs.7,14,931/-. Complainant has also prayed for directions to OP to pay the Complainant damages towards mental harassment, agony, depression to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith litigation cost.
- Complainant purchased a Treadmill model Tondo (Computerized with L.C.D. and T.V.) fitted with A.C. 3HP motor on 03.05.2007 for a total price of Rs.2,19,375/-.
- It is averred that as part of promotional scheme OP had offered that if the Complainant is successful in reducing his weight by 20% with the use of the said Treadmill, he shall be entitled to refund of the cost price of the machine being Rs.1,95,000/-. It is alleged that OP did not abide by the promotional offer made at the time of purchase as after ten months of purchase the Complainant was able to reduce his weight by 20% and immediately informed the office of OP to avail the benefit of Rs.1,95,000/- but to no avail.
- It is also alleged that with the said Treadmill, Complainant was promised warranty of 120 months from the date of purchase. It is averred that the said Treadmill in the month of April, 2008, about ten months from the date of purchase stopped working. Complainant informed the OP regarding the said fact and OP sent some staff/technician, who uninstalled the A.C. circuit/some part of the machine and took the same with him for repairing with the assurance to replace or repair the same within one week. However, it was later informed by OP that the machine could only be repaired if the Complainant was willing to pay Rs.15,000/- towards repairs. It is alleged that though the said Treadmill was within the warranty period still OP repaired the said machine only after receiving Rs.15,000/- from the Complainant. Aggrieved, by the circumstance the Complainant has approached this Commission.
- Complainant in support of his claim has annexed copy of the bill dated 03.05.2007 alongwith a bill showing promotional offer as annexure P-1. Copy of the warranty card is annexed as annexure P-2.
- OP resisted the complaint denying the allegation of the Complainant that the warranty period for the treadmill was 120 months. OP submits that warranty for the said Treadmill was only for twelve months on compressor and seven years on motor of the same. It is next stated by OP that as regards the promotional component the Complainant never approached OP at any point of time at his office, so the question of checking his weight does not arise. Therefore, there is no question of refunding Rs.1,95,000/- to the Complainant.
- It is next stated by OP that on information from the Complainant that the Treadmill was not working, OP sent its technician to repair the Treadmill. He reported that the A.C. circuit of the Treadmill was damaged by rats. As the said default is not covered under warranty the defect was duly repaired after receiving the payment.
- Parties have led their evidence in support of their contentions. Written arguments of both the parties are on record. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant. Material placed on record is perused.
- There are two issues of contention in this complaint, which requires our consideration. First issue is that the Complainant has alleged that he was promised warranty of 120 months on the Treadmill in question. Whereas, OP states that the warranty on the compressor of the Treadmill was for twelve months and seven years warranty on the motor was provided to the Complainant. The terms and conditions of the warranty are appended by the Complainant at page no. 14 of the complaint, which are as under:
Terms and Conditions: - This product comes with a warranty of 120 months from the date of original purchase.
- This warranty is subject to the following provisions.
- This warranty does not accidental damage, misuse etc.
- The product must be correctly installed and operated in accordance with the instructions contained in the manual.
- The warranty will be rendered invalid if the product is resold or has been damaged by inexpert repair.
- Lodhi Sports disclaims any liability for incidental or consequential damage.
- In the event of a breakdown or requesting service please refer to your instruction manual.
- Warranty does not cover plastic parts and paint/finish.
- Warranty will be provided as per manufacture’s rules.
- True copy of the warranty card appended at page 14 shows that the number of months has been erased and written by hand on the warranty card. However, regardless of the number of months of warranty Complainant has alleged that OP has admitted that the warranty on the Treadmill was for twelve months then the OP should not have asked the Complainant to pay Rs.15,000/- for repair of the A.C. circuit of the Treadmill. To which OP contends that the A.C. circuit was damaged by rats, which is not covered under warranty, it is an accidental damage. Therefore OP charged Rs.15,000/- for repairs, from the Complainant. The said averment has not been controverted by the Complainant anywhere in his complaint. In the absence of same we conclude that OP had rightly charged for repairing the damaged A.C. circuit of the Treadmill as the said damage was not covered under warranty.
- As regards the second issue viz; that OP did not fulfil the offer given to him at the time of purchase of the Treadmill that on reduction of 20% of the weight of the Complainant, OP will refund Rs.1,95,000/- to him. In this regard no document has been adduced by the Complainant to show or to prove the fact that he had reduced 20% of his weight within one year of the purchase of the product and had informed OP of the same. Therefore, without any credible evidence to back his allegations this Commission cannot record any finding on the alleged deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by OP.
- In view of the facts discussed above the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. | |
