Delhi

East Delhi

CC/696/2014

LATA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVRANG - Opp.Party(s)

-

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  696/14

 

Smt. Lata Singh

W/o Shri S.C. Singhla

R/o D-132-A, West Vinod Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                     ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd.

D-10, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Onida

Onida House, G-I

MIDC Mahakali Caves Road

Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093                                     …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 21.08.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 31.08.2017

Judgment Passed on: 31.08.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Smt. Lata Jain against Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Onida (OP-2), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a M/W model no. 25CJ23S from Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- against bill no. 17390 dated 17.02.2011.  He has stated that he was shocked when on 25.06.2013, the product created problem for which a call was made to the executive of the company.  Executive of the company told the complainant that his product was out of warranty and he was to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent.  The complainant also took a EWC from the respondent and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, which was valid from 11.01.2014 to 10.01.2015.  He has further stated that he again faced the same problem for which executive of the respondent was called, who gave complaint no. 14030686380783 dated 27.03.2014 and assured the complainant that they will visit the house within 2 days.  After two days, executive visited the house of the complainant and told that part was not available.  Again, the officer of the respondent assured that after 2-3 days, they will change the part, but no one came to repair the said product.  Thus, it has been stated that the goods purchased by the complainant from Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) were defective which amount to deficiency in service.  Hence, he has claimed an amount of             Rs. 8,000/- being the cost of product; Rs. 40,000/- compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. 

3.       In the WS, filed on behalf of Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that the warranty of the product, which was purchased by the complainant on 17.02.2011, expired on 16.02.2012, whereas the first problem was reported by the complainant on 25.06.2013 after 2 years.  Further, the complaint have been filed after more than 3 years of purchase of item in the month of June 2014; the complaint was not maintainable after expiry of warranty of electric items and the complainant have wrongly impleaded Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) as they are only a dealer/distributor of Onida (OP-2). They have denied that the defective goods were purchased from Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).  There was no deficiency on the part of Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).

          In the WS filed on behalf of Onida (OP-2), they have stated that the product was under warranty for the period from 17.02.2011 to 16.02.2012 and after about 2 years of the expiry of the warranty period, the first time, the complainant registered the complaint on 11.01.2014 and on the same day, took EWC (AMC) vide EWC       No. 12013046177 dated 11.01.2014 for the period from 11.01.2014 to 10.01.2015, after paying the EWC amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The product was not covered for the period from 17.02.2012 to 10.04.2014.  The first complaint was attended on 11.01.2014 vide job no. 14010686380372 dated 11.01.2014.  They replaced the HV Transformer vide job no. 14010686380372 dated 11.01.2014, but the complainant have concealed the material facts.

          During the warranty period, the company performed the service i.e. (1) preventive maintenance services and (2) free labour for replacement of electrical components as a part of its obligations under this agreement.  They have also made reference to Clause 4 of terms and conditions as well as Clause 20 of the terms and conditions of the extended warranty.  They have also made reference to Clause 12 of the terms and conditions where it has been stated that “The company shall not be liable or deemed to be under default or failure in performance when such failure or default arises directly or indirectly from causes beyond reasonable control including delaying servicing due to non availability of any components, parts, and/or accessories and/or if the company is prevented from performing its obligations under this contract”

          It has also been stated that the complainant registered a complaint no. 14030686380783 dated 27.03.2014 after more than 2 months of the previous complaint which was attended by the service engineer and found the fault of door opening level of microwave.  The same was not covered under the warranty.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       Complainant have not filed evidence in support of its complaint inspite of opportunity.

          No evidence has been filed on behalf of Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).

          OP-2 has examined Shri Naresh Tomar, authorized signatory of M/s. Adonis Electronics Ltd., who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for Onida (OP-2) as neither the complainant nor representative of Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd.  (OP-1) have appeared.  It has been argued on behalf of Onida (OP-2) that there was no manufacturing defect and the complaints were attended from time to time.  He has further argued that even the complainant have not filed his evidence on oath.  Not only that, he has also stated that the complaint was made on 25.06.2013 after a period of 2 years from the date of purchase, which was of dated 17.02.2011. 

          The fact that complainant have not appeared and deposed on affidavit in support of his complaint, the allegations made in the complaint cannot be said to be proved.  On the contrary, the version given by Onida (OP-2) had to be accepted.  The fact that complainant have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) as well as Onida (OP-2), no case has been made out against them.  Thus, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.           

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President