Delhi

North East

CC/352/2022

Mr. Som Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ldt. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 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.352/22

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Som Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Rajpal, R/o C-126, Street No. 1, Gokul Puri, Bhagirathi Vihar, North East Delhi, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, Head office: Plot No. 1, 3rd Floor, Sec-11, Pascon House, Garg Trade Centre, Rohini, Delhi 110085   Branch Office: A-1, Kanti Nagar Extn., Main Road, Delhi 110051	Opposite Party

 

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

02.09.2022 05.04.2024 19.09.2024

 

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 case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 17.06.18 Complainant visited Opposite Party and purchased an AC for a sum of Rs. 42,000/- in warranty of two years and salesman of Opposite Party suggested Complainant to pay Rs. 6,700/- to increase warranty of AC up to three years and Complainant paid the same. Thereafter, Opposite Party fitted/installed the said AC in house of Complainant having five years warranty vide invoice no. GST 18 kn 2820 dated 17.06.18. On 18.03.22 the said AC stopped working and on next day Complainant made complaint to Opposite Party on his mobile number and requested to repair or replace the said AC as it is under warranty and on 20.03.22 one mechanic of Opposite Party visited house of Complainant and repaired the AC but after few days said AC got out of order and stopped cooling. Thereafter Complainant again made complaint to Opposite Party vide complaint no. 227785. On 18.04.22 a mechanic of Opposite Party visited house of Complainant and repaired the AC but after 2-3 days said AC stopped cooling again and Complainant again lodged a complaint to Opposite Party and Opposite Party assured the Complainant that they will repair the AC but failed to do so. The Complainant made many complaints to Opposite Party but Opposite Party failed to repair the said AC and Complainant is continuously calling Opposite Party and requesting Opposite Party to repair the said AC but all in vain. On 29.04.22 Complainant made complaint to Opposite Party through email but Opposite Party did not give any reply. The Complainant also made complaint at customer helpline no. of Opposite Party vide Docket no. 3458033 dated 02.05.22 but of no use. The mechanic of Opposite Party always gave false assurances to the Complainant. On 24.05.22 Complainant again lodged complaint to Opposite Party through email but Opposite Party did not reply the same. Thereafter Complainant again made complaint at consumer helpline no. vide Docket no. 3591469 dated 20.06.22 but of no use. The Complainant had already sent legal notice to Opposite Party but till date no reply was given by Opposite Party. The Complainant had paid Rs. 6,700/- extra and increased the warranty and the said is under warranty but Opposite Party is not attending calls of Complainant nor resolves the problems of Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to replace the AC in question or to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs. 48,700/- along with interest @ 24 % p.a. The Complainant has also prayed for litigation charges and Rs.4,00,000/-  for mental harassment.               
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 04.08.2023.

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 Complainant in person. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that the subject Air conditioner was purchased by the complainant on 17.06.18 which was carrying two years warranty. It is alleged that at the suggestion of Opposite Party, the dealer, the complainant also  availed extended warranty of three years after paying Rs.6,700/-. The case of the complainant is that said AC started developing certain issues in March, 2022 and despite several complaints in that regards, Opposite Party failed to resolve the issues. It is alleged that while Complainant had paid Rs. 6,700/- extra and increased the warranty and the said AC was under warranty but Opposite Party was neither attending calls of Complainant nor resolving the problems of Complainant. Hence, Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in services.
5. The perusal of the material on record shows that the complainant has relied upon copy of Purchase invoice of the subject product, copy of Tax invoice of Extended Warranty issued by Opposite Party, copy of one email allegedly written to Opposite Party  and copy of legal notice to the Opposite Party.  
6. The allegation of the complainant is that the subject product was originally carrying two years warranty. Additionally, he also purchased three years extended Warranty by paying Rs.6,700/-. First of all, the purchase invoice of the subject product does not mention any warranty of of two years. So far as the extended warranty is concerned, the complainant has filed Tax Invoice which mentions warranty of three years but does not contain any terms and conditions of extended warranty. The document also shows that the complainant had paid Rs. 1 in cash for the said warranty instead of Rs, 6,700/- as alleged. It is the case of the complainant that after complaint, Opposite Party had sent their mechanic 20.03.22 and repaired the AC but it again developed some issues. It is also alleged that the complainant has filed complaints at the customer care of the Opposite Party. However, the complainant has not filed any job sheet or copy of complaints lodged in support of his allegations. The complainant has also not filed any evidence to show that the legal notice to the Opposite Party has been received by the Opposite Party.
7. Since, the complainant has not been able to any cogent evidence to prove his allegation that the subject AC was not functioning and despite several complaints within warranty period, the issue was not resolved. The Complainant has also failed to show any warranty card to show that the product was covered under the warranty. The Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that the AC in question was defective except one email dated 29.04.2022 alleging that Opposite Party had promised the complainant to change certain parts but did not do so. The said correspondence is not at all conclusive proof of the fact that the AC was not functional and despite under warranty, it was not repaired by the Opposite Party. Moreover, the complainant has not filed affidavit under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act to prove the said electronic document.
8. Thus, 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 her case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
9. In view of the above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of services on the part of the Opposite Party, hence, no case is made out for deficiency in services against Opposite Party.
10.  Thus, in view thereof, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. Order announced on 19.09.24.

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)