Delhi

North East

CC/34/2022

Manisha Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Cool Air Conditioning - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 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.34/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Manisha Gupta W/o Sh. Dhiraj Sukhija R/o 1/2475, Moti Ram Road, Gali No. 26, Ram Nagar, Shahdara Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.       3.	Cool Air Conditioning H-69, A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095 Through its proprietor Sanjeev Goel   Bharat Communication, A-245, Durgapuri Extn. 100 Futa Road, Delhi 110032   Samsung Electronics Through its Managing Director, Registered Office at: 6th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                       DATE OF ORDER  :

15.02.2022 29.03.2023 02.08.2023

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

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

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a brand new tablet Samsung SM Silver, INY from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 11.11.2022  for a sum of Rs. 21,000/-. At the time of purchase the guarantee/warranty card was given and the guarantee/warranty was one year from the date of purchase. After some days from the purchase of the said product the said product was having some problem and not working properly. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 to repair the said product. After inspection of the said product, the executive of service centre told to the Complainant that warranty of the said product had been expired on 31.07.2020 and as per record of the Opposite Party No. 2 the said product was sold on or before 31.07.2019. Thereafter, the Complainant called up the authorized manger of the service centre and stated that the said product was purchased on 11.11.2020 and the manager had stated that warranty of the product had been expired on 31.07.2020 and it is not possible to repair the said product as it was not in the warranty period and the product was purchased on 31.07.2019. Complainant stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 again resold a defected product as a new one with mala fide intention for wrongful gain because the product was already registered on internet on 31.07.2019. Complainant stated that Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 1 and told about everything then Opposite Party No. 1 in spite of resolved the issues Opposite Party No. 1 threatened the Complainant. The Complainant had also filed a criminal complaint against the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of handset i.e. Rs. 21,000/- with interest 18 %, Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has filed a false complaint. It is stated that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the Complainant had purchased a tablet from it on 11.11.2020 by paying Rs. 21,000/-. It is alleged that the tablet was damaged by the daughter of the Complainant and therefore it was not covered under the warranty. Opposite Party No. 1 has denied the allegation of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the case.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the averments made in the complaint are vague and false. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service. It is stated that the Complainant had purchased the tablet from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 11.11.2020 for a sum of Rs. 21,000/-. It is stated that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 3 for the first time in the month of September on 07.09.2021 regarding the sound system and display of the tablet. The service engineer of the Opposite Party No. 3 kept the tablet and after inspection told the Complainant that the warranty of the said product had expired as the product in question was sold on 31.07.2019.

 Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Goel, Proprietor of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 3 has filed affidavit of Shri Sandeep Saha, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 3 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3.  We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 3. The case of the Complainant is that on 11.11.2020 she has purchased a tablet from Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 21,000/-. The said tablet was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 3. The case of the Complainant is that after some time the tablet was not working properly the she approached Opposite Party No. 2 and she was told that the warranty of this tablet had already expired on 31.07.2020 as the same was sold on or before 31.07.2019. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 1 has sold her the tablet which was an old one and warranty of the same had expired on 31.07.2020 i.e. before she purchased the said tablet. The Opposite Party No. 3 has also stated in its written statement that its service engineer found that the said tablet was sold on 31.07.2019 and its warranty had expired on 31.07.2020. The Opposite Party No. 1 did not lead any evidence to show that it had sold the old tablet to the Complainant which was earlier sold on 31.07.2019. Therefore, it is proved that the Opposite Party No. 1 had sold the tablet to the Complainant on 11.11.2020 which was as per record of the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No. 3 had already been sold on 31.07.2019 and its warranty had expired on 31.07.2020. Therefore, the complaint is allowed, Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of the purchase till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 shall also pay an amount Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. form the date of this order till recovery.
9. Order announced on 02.08.2023.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)