Delhi

North

RBT/CC/242/2022

UMESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAZZLE DAZZLE ELECTRONIC - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. RBT/CC/242/2022

In the matter of

1. Sh. Umesh Kumar

S/o Shri Krishan lal

R/o Gali No.2, near Jharoda Police Chowki

Sangam Vihar

Delhi-110084                                                       ..........Complainant                                                                 

Vs

1. M/s Razzle Dazzle Electronic

Shop No.121, GTB Nagar,

Delhi-110009                                                            .....Opposite party No.1

 

2. L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

A Wing, (3^rd floor), D-3, District Centre

Saket, New Delhi.                                                        .....Opposite party

 

                                               

ORDER

15/02/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where the matter has been transferred from DCDRC-V (North-West) to this Commission. 

This complaint has been filed by Sh.Umesh Kumar, the complainant against M/s Razzle Dazzle Electronics, the seller as OP-1 and M/s L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer as OP-2 with the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that on 04/06/2018 the complainant purchased one refrigerator Model No. LGDC REFGL B241APGX from OP-1.  An invoice bearing No.GTB-124 for Rs.19,000/- was issued.  The complainant has stated that the said refrigerator was defective as it had scratches on the door and dent on the body.  A complaint bearing No.RNP18060909975 on 05/06/2018 was registered for the replacement of defective refrigerator.

The complainant has alleged that OP-1 had delivered the refrigerator kept as display unit. Despite several telephonic reminders, the defective refrigerator was not replaced. 

Legal notice dated 24/07/2018 was served upon OPs with request to replace the refrigerator, which was neither replied nor complied with. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to replace the refrigerator with new refrigerator; compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment along with cost of litigation. 

The complainant has annexed the invoice bearing No.GTB-124 dated 04/06/2018, Legal notice dated 24/07/2018 along with postal receipt with the complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs; however, none appeared on behalf of OP-1, despite service.  Hence they were proceeded       Ex-parte vide order dated 04/09/2019. 

Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-2. They have taken several objections such as the present complaint was false and malafide.  It was submitted that the complainant has only alleged that he was supplied with a defective product by OP-1 and there is no grievance against OP-2.  They have further submitted that the complaint No.RNP18060909975 was made on 09/06/2018 for installation of the said refrigerator.  In case there was dent/physical damage as alleged by complainant, he should have immediately approached OP-1 but not later than 15 days. 

They have denied that there was any manufacturing/technical defect, therefore, they were not liable for any deficiency in services. They have specifically denied that the refrigerator kept for display in the shop of OP-1  was delivered to the complainant. It was also submitted that as the product in question was having physical damage thus it was out of warranty.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied. 

It is observed that though the written statement has  been signed by a person namely ,Sh.Ajayan G and as per affidavit he has stated that he is the authorised representative of OP-2, however, no authority letter in favour of the said person has been filed.  Even the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of OP-2 does not bear the stamp of LG (India) Electronics Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP-2.

Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 was filed by the complainant.  It was stated that the OP-2 was the necessary party and there was no concealment of fact by the complainant. Rest of the contents of the written statement have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated. 

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has repeated the contents of the complaint.  He has got exhibited the receipt of the refrigerator as Ex.CW1/1. Legal notice dated 24/07/2018 as Ex.CW1/2  and postal receipts have also been exhibited as Ex.CW1/3.

Sh. Ajayan G,stated to be the authorised representative has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has repeated the contents of the written statement.

We have heard the arguments by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-2. We have also perused the material placed on record and have gone through the written submission filed by them. OP-1 has already been proceeded Ex-parte.

The complainant has alleged that OP-1 had sold a defective refrigerator which was a display unit.  The only document filed by complainant in support of his allegations is the tax invoice dated 04/06/2018 (Ex.CW1/1) ,which only shows, that the refrigerator in dispute was purchased by the complainant from OP-1.

It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd. V/s Dolphin International Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009 decided on 6.10.2021,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. In a judgment of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66), this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it....”

 

          The complainant has not filed any documentary evidence, such as photographs of the alleged Refrigerator, job sheet or expert opinion to show that there was defect in the product sold by OP-1 and manufactured by OP-2.the onus to prove deficiency in services on part of OP-1 and OP-2 was on the complainant. Further, it is settled principle of law that the complaint should stand on its own legs which is not so in the present case.  Hence, the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegations. 

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

              (Harpreet Kaur Charya)                                    (Ashwini Kumar Mehta)

Member                                                          Member

                           (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

          President