Haryana

Kaithal

234/20

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Riya Galaxy - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.234/2020.

                                                 Date of institution: 04.08.2020.

                                                 Date of decision:31.03.2023.

Raj Kumar, aged 34 years S/o Sh. Arjun Kumar, resident of Village Barot, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Riya Galaxy, Main Road, Subzi Mandi Dhand, District Kaithal through its Prop./partner. Mob.No.97292-59045.
2. Sansui Customer Service, 139, Dayal Singh Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal-98127-92000.
3. Sansui India, D-170, Pocket-D, Okhla, Phase-1, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.

….Respondents.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OPs exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Raj Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.  

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a washing machine Model: WM SS72MP-DMIK5 from the OP No.1 for the sum of Rs.8400/- vide invoice No.57 dt. 14.02.2019 against the warranty of two years.  It is alleged that soon after the purchase of aforesaid washing machine, the said washing machine started giving the electric current and wife of complainant suffered current several times during washing clothes.  It is further alleged that on 06.03.2020, the wife of complainant was washing the clothes, suddenly the said washing machine got fire and burnt totally and valuable clothes and plastic basket were also burnt and inspite of that the mudguard and one tyre of motor-cycle parked near the washing machine was also burnt.  The complainant made the complaint to the OPs, but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant.  The OPs have sold the defective piece of washing machine to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

2.             Upon notice, the OPs No.2 & 3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.29.09.2020 of this commission, whereas OP No.1 initially appeared but OP No.1 neither filed written statement despite availing several opportunities nor appeared, so, Op No.1 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 05.12.2022 of this Commission.

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a washing machine Model: WM SS72MP-DMIK5 from the OP No.1 for the sum of Rs.8400/- vide invoice No.57 dt. 14.02.2019 against the warranty of two years.  It is argued that soon after the purchase of aforesaid washing machine, the said washing machine started giving the electric current and wife of complainant suffered current several times during washing clothes.  It is further argued that on 06.03.2020, the wife of complainant was washing the clothes, suddenly the said washing machine got fire and burnt totally and valuable clothes and plastic basket were also burnt and inspite of that the mudguard and one tyre of motor-cycle parked near the washing machine was also burnt.  It has been further argued that the OPs have sold the defective piece of washing machine to the complainant.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and so, prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

6.             We have perused all the record available on the file.    It is clear that the complainant had purchased the washing machine in question on 14.02.2019 as per Annexure-C1.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said machine was defective.  The complainant has placed on file only an application written to Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal on 17.06.2020 as per Annexure-C3 mentioning therein that during washing clothes, there was electric current in the said washing machine and the said washing machine got burnt on 06.03.2020 but the complainant has not placed on file any job-card or expert report of any mechanic which could prove that the washing machine was defective and he had approached the OPs for removal of defects from the washing machine but he did not do so. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Mere allegations are not sufficient, those are necessary to be substantiated by cogent evidence.    

7.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:31.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.