Delhi

North East

CC/97/2023

Nishkarsh Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Manvi Elevators Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Apr 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. 97/23

In the matter of:

 

	Nishkarsh Gautam, S/o Sh. Pankaj Gautam, B-70, Sector 46, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201303	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Manvi Elevators Pvt. Ltd., 104, C/1, Gali No. 11, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi 32   Also at: 2nd Floor, Plot No. CS-1/2, Gyankhand 3, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201014	Opposite Party

 

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

13.04.2023 05.02.2024 16.04.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, 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 complaint is that he had purchased a Elevator/Lift having capacity of 6 passengers/408Kgs, serving 3 stops, 1.0 MPS with automatic car and landing doors from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Complainant stated that the said lift was installed for operational at his residence and put under normal operations. Complainant stated that on 17.01.2022, the said lift was handed over to him for use vide letter dated MEPL/ELV/21-22/0117 along with 12 months of both warranty and free maintenance from the date of handing over. Complainant stated that within few months of official hand over of lift, he observed that the lift was working erratically and malfunctioning on frequent basis. Complainant stated that due to this reason the first complaint regarding malfunctioning of lift was raised on 07.04.2022 and at that time, though the technicians came to attend the issue but yet no proper solution was provided. Complainant stated that on various occasions he made several complaints regarding the same but they never provided the solution to the issue. Complainant stated that he also made several other complaints to the Opposite Party but no proper solution was provided by the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that after the said incident his mother slipped and fell on her right knee in the month of September 2022 due to landing of lift on uneven floor. The mother of the Complainant was advised physiotherapy for one month and her injury was diagnosed as irreparable. Complainant stated that he and his family members had been facing difficulties in using the elevator/lift. Complainant stated that after several incidents, he availed one year Annual Maintenance Contract with Opposite Party of 12 months which was expired on 17.01.2023 and several other agencies refused to take up the responsibility to service a faulty elevator/lift. Complainant stated that he raised several complaints but Opposite Party failed to resolve the issue. On 25.02.2023 Complainant raised a complaint with Opposite Party but technician failed to resolve the issue and again on 01.03.2023, Complainant raised another complaint then a technician came to inspect on 02.03.2023 and then his family members along with the technician got stuck in the lift for 5 minutes to which technician reported that the lift was running sometime and having fault and a mechanical part namely relay had to be changed but no action was taken by the Opposite Party till now. Complainant stated that Opposite Party had failed to provide permanent solution to the issue, hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. A notice was also sent on 09.03.2022 but they did not take any action. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to replace the whole faulty elevator/lift and compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards punitive for causing mental harassment. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the physiotherapy which was taken for the Complainant’s mother and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.09.2023.

 

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

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

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a lift from the Opposite Party and the same was installed at his residence. It is his case that during the warranty/guarantee period, the said lift started trouble as the same was not functioning properly. His case is that he made complaints and some technicians visited and inspected the lift but despite that the fault in the lift was not rectified by the Opposite Party. From the affidavit filed by the Complainant in his evidence and other record i.e. whats app, messages etc., it is clear that the lift was not functioning properly. The Opposite Party did not appear to contest the case and therefore under these circumstances, it is proved that the lift installed by the Opposite Party at the residence of the Complainant was not functioning properly. The Complainant has not filed any document/estimated cost of the repair of the lift, therefore, under these circumstance it is ordered that the Opposite Party shall repair/rectify the fault of the lift and it shall make the lift operational/functional.
5. It is the case of the Complainant that in the month of September 2022, his mother slipped and sustained injury due to the stopping of the lift at uneven floor. It is important to note that the Complainant has not mentioned any date on which his mother sustained injury due to stopping of the lift at uneven floor. Even, the Complainant has not filed the evidence/affidavit of his mother to show that his mother sustained injury as alleged by him. In support of this contention, the Complainant has filed only copies of two documents. One is prescription slip of the Dr. Sanjay Gupta (Annexure G) which is dated 18.10.2022 and this document does not show any injury sustained by the mother of the Complainant due to fall/slip from the lift. It mentioned history of slipping and fall one month ago and knee pain.  In case, the mother of the Complainant had sustained the injury in the month of September 2022, the Complainant would have taken his mother immediately/on the same day to some hospital or doctor. In the present case, the Complainant has filed the document showing the prescription slip of the doctor which is dated 18.10.2022. The other document filed by the Complainant is receipt dated 18.10.2022 of Rs. 15,000/- by SG Physiotherapy Centre, Noida. This amount was received by the said Physiotherapy Centre for physiotherapy. Under these circumstances and in the absence of affidavit of the mother of the Complainant, it can not be believed that the mother of the Complainant had sustained injury due to stopping of the lift at uneven floor in the month of September 2022.
6. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the Opposite Party shall repair/rectify the fault of the lift within 30 days of the receipt of this order. It is also ordered that Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation charges and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental harassment to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
7. Order announced on 16.04.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)