BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 86 of 2021
Date of Institution: 08.04.2021
Date of Decision: 23.11.2022.
Lovely Arora, aged 45 years son of Sh. Sham Lal, resident of Tina Bakerya, Colony Road, Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. ………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s C.N.C. Store (actually G.N.C) through Proprietor Nasib Garg situated behind Chaudhary Devi Lal Park, Malwa Bye Pass, Mandi Killianwali, District Muktsar Sahib. Mobile No. 98725-00930.
2. Eureka Forbes Ltd. Through its Manager,Cooperative Office B1/B2, 7th Floor, Marathon Innova Marathon Next Genn, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Panel, Mumbai- 400-013, India.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …….……….MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Subhash Chander father-in-law authorized person on behalf of complainant.
Sh. Parvinder Gaba, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
None for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (referred as OPs) with the averments on 12.02.2020, complainant had purchased Eureka Forbes Wet & Dry Pro vacuum cleaner from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.4500/- vide bill no.601 for cleanliness of the Car. The same was gifted by his father-in-law Sh. Subhash Chander. That when complainant tried to use the said vacuum cleaner, same did not work and as such complainant reported the matter to the op no.1 but op no.1 stated that he cannot do anything in this regard and refused to replace or repair the vacuum cleaner. That op no.1 has sold a defective vacuum cleaner to them as complainant has only one car but the said vacuum cleaner could not clean only one car. It is further averred that complainant also made complaint to the customer care of op no.2 and his complaint was registered but did not take any action on the complaint of complainant so far and asked to contact with the dealer from where it was purchased. That ops did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. The father in law of complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 15.3.2021 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written version stating therein that on 12.02.2021 after full checking and satisfaction vacuum cleaner of Carcher company was purchased from him for the amount of Rs.4500/-. The complainant after using the said vacuum cleaner for two days came to his shop and stated that vacuum cleaner is not as per his choice upon which answering op stated to him that it is their policy that they do not take back the sold item and also do not replace the same. However, after repeated requests of complainant and as per demand of complainant, the op no.1 replaced the vacuum cleaner with Eureka Forbes Wet & Dry Pro vacuum cleaner which was also fully checked by the complainant and the market value of this vacuum cleaner was Rs.9000/- and at that time op no.1 made it clear to him that thereafter same will not be replaced and after that they will not be responsible for the same, the detail of which is mentioned in their bill book. It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of said vacuum cleaner, same was in working condition and was perfectly working and was duly checked by the complainant by cleaning his car at that time. It is further averred that legal notice was got served from one Subhash Chander in which it was stated that vacuum cleaner was purchased by said Subhash Chander but now in the complaint complainant has alleged that he had purchased the vacuum cleaner and thus it is clear that complaint is false and frivolous and as such no reply to the legal notice was given as vacuum cleaner was not sold to said Subhash Chander. It is further submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as shop of op no.1 is situated in Mandi Killianwali, Tehsil Malot, District Shri Muktsar Sahib (Punjab). Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has purchased old product from one unauthorized dealer and op no.1 is not the authorized dealer of op no.2 and op no.1 is in no way associated and connected with op no.2. It is further submitted that as per complaint, the complainant purchased the said duplicate wet and dry pro vacuum cleaner on 12.02.2020 from op no.1. From the perusal of invoice, it was found that price of the said wet and dry pro vacuum cleaner is mentioned as Rs.4500/-. The op no.2 does not have any wet and dry pro vacuum cleaner in the price range of Rs.4500/- as the price range of wet and dry pro vacuum cleaner starts from Rs.15,000/- onwards and op no.2 does not sell the said product at the rate of Rs.4500/- in the market. This clearly shows that complainant has purchased duplicate or old unit from unauthorized dealer for which op no.2 cannot be held liable to provide any type of warranty or services to the complainant. That present complaint is filed by complainant just to harass and hurt the image of op no.2 and complainant wants to receive unlawful money from op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.
4. Sh. Subhash Chander father in law of complainant being authorized by complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents i.e. invoice Ex.C1.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 may be read in evidence of op no.1 and he does not want to lead any other evidence.
6. When the case was fixed for evidence of op no.2 subject to last and final opportunity, none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and as such evidence of op no.2 was closed by order. Thereafter also, none appeared on behalf of op no.2 despite the fact that case was also fixed for presence of op no.2.
7. We have heard authorized representative on behalf of complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Though complainant has alleged that he purchased the vacuum cleaner on 12.2.2020 but from the perusal of invoice Ex.C1 it is evident that he purchased the same on 12.2.2021. Further, from the perusal of invoice Ex.C1, it is evident that on 12.2.2021 earlier complainant purchased vacuum cleaner of Carcher company from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.4500/- but thereafter said vacuum cleaner was replaced with vacuum cleaner of Eureka Forbes company as is evident from the invoice dated 12.2.2021 itself as after making cutting on the Carcher company, Eureka Forbes has been written on the invoice Ex.C1. So, it is proved on record that op no.1 had already replaced the vacuum cleaner of Carcher company with Eureka Forbes company as per choice and demand of the complainant. However, it is not proved on record that whether op no.1 charged any extra amount for replacement of vacuum cleaner or not as op no.1 has alleged that market value of the replaced vacuum cleaner was Rs.9000/- but complainant has not alleged that he paid more amount to the op no.1 for replacement of the vacuum cleaner. Rather it is proved on record that complainant himself purchased vacuum cleaner from op no.1 for the amount of Rs.4500/- as its original price was of Rs.9000/- and therefore, op no.1 did not provide any warranty/ guarantee of the replaced vacuum cleaner. Further, again the complainant alleges defect in the vacuum cleaner of Eureka Forbes company, however, the complainant in order to prove his complaint that vacuum cleaner was not working has not led any cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion to prove that vacuum cleaner was defective. Further more, as complainant himself purchased the vacuum cleaner from op no.1 without any guarantee/ warrantee for less amount than the actual price of the vacuum cleaner, therefore, without any guarantee/ warranty of the same, present complaint is not maintainable. As such, the complainant has failed to prove his case and complaint deserves dismissal.
9. Keeping in view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced Member Member President,
Dated: 23.11.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
