Delhi

New Delhi

CC/65A/2013

Rajesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Samsung India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

 

                                       CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 65A/2013                                     Dated:

In the matter of:

             Rajesh Kumar Sharma

             S/o Late Sh. Ravi Dutt Sharma

             R/o Sec-2A/228, Vasundhara

            Ghaziabad, UP-201010

                                                                                                                            ....COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1. Next Retail India Limited

         Mahagun Metro Mall VC-3

          Shop No.9, Lower Basement Vaishali

           Sec-3 Ghaziabad, UP.

 

 

2.  Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.

 F-26/6, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase –II

                New Delhi-110020

                                                                                                             .....OPPOSITE PARTY(s)

 

 

Quorum:

Ms. PoonamChaudhry, President

            Shri.Bariq Ahmad, Member

            Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

Dated of Institution : 04.04.2013

                                                                   Date of Order             : 20.04.2022

 

ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (in short OPs) namely Next Retail India Ltd., the dealer (OP-1), and Samsung India pvt. Ltd., the Manufacturer (OP-2) under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that on 02.06.2011, the complainant purchased one Air Conditioner from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.22,800/-vide bill no.3100202461. The OP-1 allegedly told the complainant that the Air Conditioner produced by Samsung (OP-2) was the best and OP-1 assured the complainant that Air Conditioner would render flawless and fault free service for years. The complainant was given one year warantee  and five year warantee on the compressor of Air Conditioner. It is further alleged in the complaint that on facing some problem in Oct, 2012, the complainant contacted the customer care office of OP-2 and was assured by OP-2 that their engineer would visit the complainant place and repair the Air Conditioner but allegedly no enginner paid the visit. During the summer, the complainant faced more issues in the Air Conditioner such as Noise in Air Conditioner, not cooling and leakage of Gas etc.The complainant has alleged that the OP had sold him defective goods and they are responsible for the same. The OP’s  have failed to provide any service as assured hence, there has been deficiency on their part and due to that the complainant has suffered mental agony.
2. Hence, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint and prayed that the OP be directed to refund the cost of Air Conditioner which is Rs. 22,800/-, to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony caused and the cost of litigation.
3. On service of notice, none had appeared on behalf of OP-1 while the OP-2 had filed their written version. In their reply. OP-2 had admitted that the Air Conditioner was purchased by the complainant after having full satisfaction but it is averred that the present complainant has been filed on false and frivolous grounds without any cause of action and with ulterior motive to extract compensation from the OP. It is further averred that the complainant has neither mentioned any Job no. in his pleadings nor placed any documents such as job sheet of the Air Conditioner etc. to prove his contentions.
4. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant has filed only one supporting document which is cash/ credit memo dated 2.6.2012 documents. The OP-2 has also filed their evidence by affidavit as well as the written arguments.
5. Heard arguments addressed by the Counsel for OP-2. Perused the records carefully.
6. The fact that the Complainant purchased the Air Conditioner from OP-1, manufacured by OP-2 is not disputed. The Copy of Cash /Credit memo filed by the complainant also proves this fact. The complainant has further pleaded that the defect in the Air Conditioner was intimated to the OP. However, the said contention has not been corroborated  or supported by any documentary proof. The complanant has neither filed any copy of complaint to the OP 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 Air Conditioner to prove his averments. The complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that the Air Conditioner in question was defective and despite his complaint asking OP to repair or removal of defect, OP failed resolve the issue making OP liable to be deficient in services.
7. 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.

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. 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

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as statutorily required.

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                                                 (ADARSH NAIN)    

            Member                                                                                                Member