Delhi

North East

CC/398/2022

Mukul Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Midea - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2024

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. 398/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

		Sh. Mukul Kumar S/o Sh. Veer Singh R/o H.No. E 20/702, East Gokalpur Amar Colony, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.	Midea 7, K.G Garment Sterilization, Fully Autmatic Fornt Carrier Midea India Pvt. 1st Floor Pearl Tower Pilot No. 51, Sector 32 Gurugram, Haryana 12201   Carrier Midea India Pvt. LHS on Lower Ground Floor Plot No. 62, Okhla Industrial, Estate Phase 3, New Delhi-110020		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		20.10.22 25.04.24 07.08.24

14.02.

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in services.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a washing machine on 29.09.19 amounting to               Rs. 17,999/-. It is stated that some has developed with the said washing machine one month before. Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party Company many times but till date no mechanic was sent to repair/resolve the issues in machine. The Complainant stated that the washing Machine is still under warranty but company officials were not giving any satisfactory response. The Complainant wants the refund/value of machine so that he can buy another machine as he was suffering from financial and mental problem.  The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 17,999/- i.e. the cost of the washing machine and Rs. 10,000/- for mental and financial harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 31.01.23.

Ex-Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and also perused the file.
5. It is the case of the Complainant that Complainant purchased a washing machine on 29.09.19 which developed certain issues one month before. Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party Company many times but till date no mechanic was allegedly sent to repair/resolve the issues in machine while the washing Machine is still under warranty. The Complainant prays for the refund/value of machine so that he can buy another machine as he was suffering from financial and mental problem. 
6. The Complainant has only filed copy of Invoice of subject product i.e. washing machine in support of her case. The perusal of the document only shows that the product was purchased by the complainant on 29.09.19 and was carrying warranty of 4 years.
7.  The contention of the Complainant is that the defect in the product was intimated to the Opposite Party and the complaints were lodged, however, the said contention has not been supported by any documentary proof. The perusal of the complaint itself shows that the Complainant has neither mentioned any dates of complaints allegedly lodged with the Opposite Parties nor any complaint number allotted. We observe that the Complainant has neither filed any copy of complaint to the Opposite Party nor has he filed any correspondences exchanged between the parties. The Complainant has neither mentioned about any Job no. in his pleadings nor placed any documents such as job sheet of the product to prove his averments.
8. The Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that there were issues with the washing machine in question and despite his complaint asking Opposite Party to repair or removal of defect, Opposite Party failed resolve the issue making Opposite Party  liable to be deficient in services.
9. In this context, we would like to place reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd. (Oct 6, 2021) wherein it is upheld that “ the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.” The Division Bench in above cited case relied on its judgment reported in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000 1 SCC 66) wherein it held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
10. In view of above, we find that the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove her case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
11. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the Opposite Parties and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. Order announced on 07.08.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)            Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President