Delhi

North East

CC/295/2022

Sachin Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Philips India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 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. 295/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Sachin Gupta, S/o Sh. Paras Nath Gupta, R/o H.No. 45-B, St. 15-B, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Karawal  Nagar, Delhi-110094		Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	M/s Philips India Ltd. Through its Director 3rd Floor, Tower A, DLF IT Park, 08 Block AF, Major Arteril Road, New Towen ( Rajanhat) Kolkata, West Bengal-700156, India.   M/s Philips India Ltd. Through its Director Unit No. 402, 4th Floor, Tower 3, Bharti Wardmard, Maidwas Road, Sector-65, Gurugram, Haryana-122018		Opposite Parties
		DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                                          DATE OF ORDER:		21.07.22 13.03.23 20.09.23

 

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.

Case of the Complainant

1. The Complainant had purchased Phillips juicer mixer on 04.03.22 for sum of   Rs. 2,951/- having bill invoice no. 650. The Complainant stated that said product was defective as from the date of purchase; the said product was not functioning properly. The Complainant stated that he approached customer care service no. 6 times from 12.03.22 to 13.04.22 but Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not remove the defects in said product. The Complainant asked the reason about the default of said product but Opposite Party No.1 and 2 neither repaired or change the above said product nor informed the Complainant. The Complainant stated that he lodged many complaints on various dates but Complainant did not receive any information from Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 2,951/- i.e. the cost of juicer mixer. He also prayed for Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 10,000/- for conveyance and other expenses, Rs. 21,000/- for legal notice charges.
2. Opposite parties were served with the notice of complaint but none of them entered appearance. Hence, the Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 17.11.22.

Ex-Parte evidence of the Complainant

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

 

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant in person and we have also perused the file.
5. The case of the Complainant is that the subject juicer mixer purchased by him from the Opposite Parties was defective as from the date of purchase and was not functioning properly. It is also the case of the Complainant that he approached customer care service no. 6 times from 12.03.22 to 13.04.22 but Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not remove the defects in said product. It is alleged that in spite of lodging many complaints, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 neither repaired or change the above said product nor informed the Complainant.
6. The perusal of the file shows that the Complainant has filed copy of purchase invoice and warranty card in support of his case. 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. 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.
7. The Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that the mixer juicer in question was defective 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 his case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
10. 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.
11. Order announced on 20.09.23.

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