Delhi

East Delhi

CC/246/2016

NAVEEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAZZLE DEZZLE - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2019

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. 246/16

 

Shri Naveen Khanna

22/4, Jagat PUri

Gali No. 2, Delhi.                                                        ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

Razzle Dazzle Electronics

F-3/31, Krishna Nagar

Delhi – 110 051

 

Videocon Industries Limited

Plot No. 296, Udyog Vihar Phae- II

Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana                                           …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 13.05.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 30.04.2019

Judgement Passed on: 02.05.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Naveen Khanna against      M/s. Razzle Dazzle Electronics (OP-1) and Videocon Industries Limited (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Naveen Khanna purchased a Videocon refrigerator from M/s. Razzle Dazzle Electronics (OP-1), authorized dealer of OP-2, on 03.03.2016 by paying an amount of Rs. 16,000/-.

            It was stated that the refrigerator was not working properly from the very first day for which the complainant made a call to customer care of OP.  After checking, officer of OP replaced the refrigerator with a new one. 

The complainant was shocked when he noticed that the new refrigerator created the same problem.  He immediately made a call to OP and was assured that they will visit the house of the complainant within       2 days, but no one visited.

It was further stated that as OP failed to provide good product and service to the complainant , there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to refund Rs. 16,000 i.e. the cost of refrigerator; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.         OP-1 did not put the appearance inspite of service.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

In the reply filed on behalf of OP-2, they have stated that the complainant registered a call vide complaint no,. DEL1103160340 which was duly attended and as per report of service engineer, the refrigerator was replaced with a new one.  No complaint was registered for the replaced refrigerator. 

It was further stated that OP-2 was ready to provide repair services of the refrigerator as per company warranty policy.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.         Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

            In defence, OP-2 have examined Shri Sudhir Singh, who have deposed on affidavit.   He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.

6.         We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record as none have appeared on behalf of OPs.  From the evidence of complainant as well Shri Sudhir Singh, AR of OP-2, it comes out that the complainant have not placed any document on record to show that the replaced refrigerator was having any defect. 

Further, no complaint have been made to M/s. Razzle Dazzle Electronics (OP-1) or Videocon Industries Limited (OP-2).  In the absence of that, it cannot be said that the replaced refrigerator was having any defect or problem.  Therefore, the complainant have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of M/s. Razzle Dazzle Electronics (OP-1) as well as Videocon Industries Limited (OP-2).  Hence, the complaint of the complainant 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)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President