DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 41/13
Meena Maurya
C-9, Saket Golf View Apartments,
New Delhi – 110017 -Complainant
Vs
1. Next Retail Shop
D-76, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-17
Also at: K-44, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,
Delhi – 110024
2. Videocon
15 KMS Stone
Aurangabad Chittagoon, TQ Pathan,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431105
Also at: Videocon,
12th Floor, Videocon Tower,
B.L.K. E-1, Jhandabalan,
Delhi - 110055 -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 23.1.2013 Date of Order: 02.2.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of complainant is that she had purchased a Fridge make Videocon, product code no. 1400001230 vide bill No. 12977 dated 18.5.2010 from OP-1; that within a year the compressor of the fridge broke down for which the company charged Rs. 1250/- from her; that after a month another problem arose for which the OPs charged Rs. 250/-; that in Jan 2012 some problem again began and the OP charged Rs. 1400/-; that again in May 2013 the compressor of the fridge was broken down; that this time it was under six months’ warranty but OP-1 told her that the rules had been changed by the company and that the guarantee would be valid for 3 months. Therefore, OP-1 asked her to pay the money for rectification/defects. The complainant has, therefore, filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to replace the fridge or to give her compensation.
OPs haves been proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.10.13 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence. She has relied on the documents Ex. CW1/A, CW1/B & CW1/C. She has filed written arguments.
We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the record.
According to the complainant, the copy of the bill dated 18.5.10 is Ex CW1/A but the exhibit numbers have not been marked on the documents. Vide this receipt, the complainant had purchased the Fridge make Videocon for an amount of Rs. 10,675/- from OP-1. Ex. CW1/B is the copy of the bill dated 20.5.11 whereby the complainant had allegedly paid Rs. 1280/- to Ruchika Services. Similarly, CW1/C is also a copy of the bill dated 19.1.12 issued by the Ruchika Services thereby charging Rs. 1400/- from the complainant. Ruchika Services seems to be the authorized service center of the Videocon. However, the bills do not specify as on which account the said authorized center had charged the said amount from the complainant or that any warranty had been given. Complainant has not filed any document on the record to even remotely show that the OPs had given any warranty on the fridge much less warranty for more than one year or that in May 2012 the compressor of the Fridge in question had allegedly again broken down when it had warranty for six months. The complainant has not filed any document on the record to show that in May 2012 the Fridge in question had gone out of order or as to what type of problem did arise in it. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence in this behalf, we are not inclined to believe that the OPs committed any deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 02.2.16.
Case No. 246/13
02.02.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K Yadav
