Delhi

East Delhi

CC/848/2015

MUKESH AGG - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAMJIT SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 848/15

 

Shri Mukesh Aggarwal

S/o Shri O.P. Aggarwal

R/o 460, A/2B, Gali No. 15

Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara

Delhi – 110 032                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Paramjit Singh

C/o M.S. Interior’s

2/80, Satgur Ram Singh Road

Opp. Guru Teg Bahadur Park

W.H.S. & NDPL Power House

Kirti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015                                               ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 16.11.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 30.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 20.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

This complaint has been filed by Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, the complainant, against Shri Paramjit Singh (OP) with prayer for directions to OP to replace the defective goods or refund Rs. 60,000/- as cost of the goods with 18% interest, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and litigation expenses.

2.        Facts in brief are that on 13.02.2013, the complainant purchased one sofa and one center table for Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 32,000/- for sofa and Rs. 28,000/- for center table) from OP.  The complainant was assured that the said goods were of high quality and had 5 years warranty.  In the month of August 2013, the complainant noticed that there were several defects like cracked leather, broken springs, faded sofa seats.  The complainant was told that the center table had toughened glass, which was unbreakable, also was broken.  The pictures of the above said goods were forwarded to OP for redressal.  Despite several efforts of the complainant, OP did not repair/replace the defective goods. 

            On 07.01.2015, a legal notice was sent to OP, demanding replacement of the defective goods, which was duly replied by OP.  Thus, the complainant has stated in his complaint that the sofa set and center table had manufacturing defects, which the OP has failed to remove despite several requests.

            Visiting card of OP, estimate for cost of sofa dated 13.02.2013, legal notice dated 07.01.2015 alongwith courier receipt, reply to the legal notice are annexed with the complaint. 

3.        OP was served with the notice of the complaint.  However, none appeared on behalf of OP, thus, they were proceeded ex-parte on 11.07.2016.

4.        Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit, where                 Shri Mukesh Aggarwal, the complainant was examined, who reiterated the contents of the complaint.

5.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  In the absence of invoice, terms and conditions and without the specific details of period of warranty, it cannot be ascertained as to when the period of warranty commenced.  Hence, the deficiency in services against OP was not made out.  Moreover, the complainant has failed to bring on record the photographs or any expert opinion to prove his case.  Thus, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit without orders to cost.     

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President