Delhi

North East

CC/216/2015

Shri. Vikas Tomar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neelam Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.216/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Vikas Tomar H.No. B-17, East Jawahar Nagar, Loni Raod, Ghaziabad, U.P.	Complainant
	Versus
1	M/s. Neelam Electronics Main Loni Road, Sonu Farm Gulab Vatika, Delhi-110094.
2	M/s Bajaj Electrical Ltd. 45-47 Veer Nariman Road Mumbai-400001.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	22.06.2015
	DATE OF DECISION      :	25.07.2017

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi,Member:-

 

ORDER

 

1. As per complaint complainant purchased a room cooler of OP2 make from OP1 vide cash memo No. 671 dated 09.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 9,100/-. On the very first day after purchase complainant found that there is leakage of water in the cooler. Complainant immediate lodged his complaint to the OPs on 09.05.2014 vide complaint no. 4648191. But nobody came to rectify the defect of cooler from OPs even after assurance given on behalf of OP1 for the same.  Thereafter six complaints on 03.06.2014 complaint no. 4817015, dated 12.06.2014 complaint no. 48877941, dated 17.06.2014 complaint no. 4908814, dated 03.07.2014 complaint no. 5014971 & dated 11.08.2014 complaint no. 5260968 were made by the complainant. But no officer from OP1 or OP2 visited the premises of complainant. In addition to it, complainant also made a number of visits to OPs but all in vain. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 13.11.2014 to OP1 through speed post but till date no reply is received from OP1. Complainant has prayed for grant of directions from this forum to the OPs to either replace the cooler with new one or refund cost. Thereof with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac only) and litigation cost of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only).

 

2. Both the OPs were served. But only OP1 appeared and filed its reply while nobody appeared on behalf of OP2 even after provided three opportunities after service of notice of this complaint on it on 14.07.2015. Hence OP2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09.11.2017.

 

3. As per reply of OP1 after sale service is the responsibility of OP2 only being manufacturer and warranty provider of the product in question. OP1 is neither manufacturer nor its authorized service centre. Hence it is not liable for any after sale service. However, purchase of the product in question from it, is not specifically denied by OP1 who just states that it is a matter of record.
4. By filing rejoinder to the reply of OP1 complainant denying all the averments in the reply has reiterated contents of the complaint, further stating that no doubt responsibility of warranty is of OP2 but OP1 is also guilty of selling product having a manufacturing defect. Thus it is also liable for the same, jointly and severally, alongwith OP2.
5. Both, complainant as well as OP1 filed their respective affidavits of evidence. However only complainant filed relevant documents on record and OP1 chose to file not even a single document in its defence.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. Going through Invoice, warranty papers and notice filed by complainant, we observe that invoice is issued by OP1 on 9.5.2014 vide No. 671 in the name of complainant. it shows that it was issued to complainant on sale of a Bajaj Cooler Model DC 2004 having Chasis No. 5339 to the complainant against a sale consideration of Rs. 9,100/-. Warranty document show that OP2 has provided one year warranty on the product. With respect to notice as per postal receipts and AD cards placed on record alongwith copy of notice we find that notice to OP1 received back unserved while notice to OP2 was not received back and is presumed to be served as record show that it was sent on its complete address and not received back.
8. On the basis of above said findings complainant has successfully established the purchase of room cooler manufactured by OP2 from OP1 and that very first day, there was defect of leakage of water in the room cooler which defect was not cured by the OPs even after a number of registered complaints to OP1 and a number of visits to it. 
9. OP1 by not filing its evidence failed to controvert complainant’s evidence which is deemed to be admitted by the OPs.
10. Thus, holding, both the OPs guilty for selling a defective room cooler and for deficiency in service in not rectifying defect in the mobile, we direct both the OPs;

 

1. To replace the defective room cooler with a brand new one having fresh warranty. Failing which refund 9,100/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and One Hundred only) cost of the cooler; and
2. To  pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for deficiency in service on their part; and
3. Litigation cost of Rs. ­­­­­­­1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only)

to the complainant jointly and severally.  

11. Orders shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy hereof.  Failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the cost of cooler w.e.f. the date of purchase till final compliance of order.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party, free of cost, as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
13. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on:  25.07.2017)

(N.K.Sharma)    President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member