Delhi

North East

CC/97/2018

Sh. Kashmiri Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sargam Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.97/18

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Kashmiri Mittal S/o Sh. Bhalle Ram Mittal R/o H.No. C-519, Gali No. 7 Near Primary School, New Seemapuri, New Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.       3.	Sargam Electronics Defence Enclave Vikas Marg, Opposite Metro Pillar No. 85 Delhi-110092   M/S Gunjan Technologies Private Ltd., H.No. 62, G/F Vijay Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi   Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Godrej Bhawan, Shersah Suri Marf, Okhla, New Delhi-110065	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

21.05.2018 17.03.2023 09.05.2023

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant had purchased a Deep Freezer manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 3 from Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 27,400/-. On 22.10.2017, Opposite Party No. 1 delivered the said product at the address of the Complainant. The said product has having five years of manufacturing warranty. But from the day of purchase, the said product was causing a lot of discomfort to the Complainant. The cover/top of the said product creates problem in opening. The Complainant was unable to open the cover of the said product unless extra force is not applied. The problem is so pathetic that the Complainant had to complain at the customer care number of Godrej so many times and service engineer visited several times at the residence of the Complainant to rectify the problem but it had not yet been rectified. The Complainant had made several complaints to the Opposite Party No. 3 and registered complaint with respect to door issue. But unfortunately, grievance of the Complainant had not been rectified and the Complainant was still suffering. The service engineer visited number of times at the place of Complainant and tried to do all the needful but the issue with respect to opening the door of the said product not solved. Even the service engineer told the Complainant that his unit should be replaced by the manufacturing company. Despite several complaints the defect in opening the said product could not be rectified which amounts to manufacturing defect in the product purchased by him. The Complainant had no other option to file the present complaint on manufacturing defect as well as deficiency in services against the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the deep freezer i.e. Rs. 27,400/- or replace the freezer in question with deep freezer, Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 21,000 on account of litigation expenses.
2. Notice served to Opposite Party No. 2 on 11.09.2018 but none has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 neither filed its written statement.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed their written statement. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the Complainant had purchased one Deep Freezer on 22.10.2017 manufactured Godrej from Opposite Party No. 1. It is submitted that the Complainant was duly informed about the cost/charge/warranty in terms of the said product after being fully satisfied by all the information the Complainant considered to purchase the said product. It is submitted that the Complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action against the Opposite Party no. 1 in order to extract money in form of compensation from Opposite Party No. 1. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no prima facie case against the Opposite Party No. 1. It is further submitted that the Complainant out of pure greed and nefarious intentions has filed the aforesaid complaint and the Complainant is wrongly trying to extract compensation from the Opposite Party No. 1 without any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed their written statements. The case of the Opposite Party No. 3 is that the Hon'ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as shop of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 fall in Shakarpur Police Station which comes in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Saini Enclave. It is further submitted that office of Opposite Party No. 3 falls in New Friends Colony Police Station which comes in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Qutub-X. As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that the Complainant is using the same for commercial purpose. As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is further submitted that product was purchased on 22.10.2017. Complainant made first complaint vide call no. 226712 on 23.10.2017 in respect of demo. Installation and demo was done on very next day i.e. 24.10.2017 with full satisfaction of Complainant. Complainant made second complaint vide call no. 228107 on 25.10.2017 in respect of excess ice formation and expert engineer visited and guided for proper temperature setting with full satisfaction of Complainant. Complainant made third complaint vide call no. 231345 on 30.10.2017 and expert engineer visited and found the same is working properly, since issue was only temperature setting for proper cooling. Complainant made fourth complaint vide call no. 284272 on 09.02.2018 in respect of door issue and expert engineer visited and found vacuum issue and gasket adjustment was done and guided for usage with full satisfaction of Complainant. Complainant made fifth complaint vide call no. 318071 on 11.04.2018 in respect of door issue and expert engineer visited and found vacuum issue and gasket adjustment was done and guided for usage with full satisfaction of Complainant. Complainant made sixth complaint vide call no. 330806 on 01.05.2018 in respect of door issue and expert engineer visited and found vacuum issue and gasket adjustment was done and guided for usage with full satisfaction of Complainant. It is further submitted that all complaints were duly attended by expert engineer and issue was resolved with full satisfaction of Complainant.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 3. As per Opposite Party No. 3, there is no manufacturing defect in the deep freezer of the Opposite Party as every deep freezer made by the Opposite Party No. 3 go through various quality checks and standards from the company itself and it was in standard condition when sold to the Complainant. It is alleged by the Opposite Party No. 3 that the complaint has been field with ulterior motives and mala fide intention to make the wrong good. So the Complainant had filed the present complaint with mala fide intention to get refund. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

5.  The Complainant filed separate rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6.  The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Manoj Kumar, being authorised for and on behalf of M/s Sargam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

8. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Ajay Mathur, Branch Commercial Manager of M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Godrej Bhawan, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a deep freezer manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 3 from Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 27,400/- and the same was delivered to him on 22.10.2017. As per the Complainant, from the date of purchase, the said product was not working properly and for that he made various complaints to the Opposite Parties and in spite of several visit by the representative of the Opposite Party, problem of the said deep freezer was not sorted out. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. The case of the Opposite Parties is that it is admitted that the Complainant was purchased the deep freezer on 22.10.2017. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No. 3 that there was certain problem with the proper working of the said deep freezer and they have received various complaint from the Complainant in respect of excess ice formation, non-opening of the door etc. within few days of purchase of the said product. As per the Opposite Party No. 3, all the complaints were duly attended by the expert engineer and issue was resolved with full satisfaction of the Complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
10. Opposite Party No. 3 raised a question of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission regarding the complaint which was disposed off by the Predecessor Bench vide order dated 17.01.2020 and allow the complaint to be maintainable. As, it is admitted by the Opposite Parties that there was problem in proper functioning of the deep freezer from the date of purchase of the said product and Complainant made several complaints in this regard. It is expected from the Opposite Parties that when the Complainant is buying brand new product manufactured by them. It should work properly and which was not in this present case so the case of the Complainant is covered under Section 6 (II) of the Consumer protection Act i.e. the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects.
11.  In view of the above discussion, complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 3 is directed to refund the cost of the deep freezer i.e. Rs. 27,400/-  to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery and Complainant will hand over the said deep freezer to the Opposite party No. 3. Opposite Party No. 3 is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
12.  Order announced on 09.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President