Delhi

East Delhi

CC/269/2017

EKTA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGEM ELE. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2020

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no          269 / 2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  19/07/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 02/03/2020

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          06/03/2020

 

In matter of

Ms. Ekta Gupta

D/o Sh S S Gupta

R/o H 402 Friends Apartments

PatparGunj, I P Extn., New Delhi 110092….……………….……..…………….Complainant

Vs

 

1M/s SargamElectronics  Ltd.,

82 DefenceEnclave, Oppo. Pillar no. 85,

VikasMarg, Delhi 110092

 

2-M/s Sharp India Ltd.

Plot no. A 9, 3^rd Floor

BITS Towers, Sec. 125, Noida,

GautamBudha Nagar, UP……………………..………………...………………………Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate……………………….Shreshth Jain &Aastha Jain

Opponent 1…………………………………………..MrManoj Kumar- AR

Opponent’s 2-Advocate……....……………….SanjeevKumar 

 

Quorum  Sukhdev Singh      President

Dr P N Tiwari             Member                                                                                                   

MrsHarpreetKaur   Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member

Brief Facts of the case

 

Complainantpurchased Sharp SAC AHX 18SST INV AUX 8SST6 split AC from OP1/ SargamElectronics on dated 03/04/2016 vide invoice no. SPREET 0243 (Ex CW1/1) and was installed by the service engineer from OP2. Complainant stated that on 28/08/2016 complaint was lodged to OP2 for excess noise from AC. Thereafter service engineer from OP2 visited and told after inspection that this AC had some manufacturing defect and OP2had stopped making this model.

Complainant felt cheated by the act of OP1 so sent email to OP1 and OP2 on 09/09/2016 (Ex CW1/3) and thereafter received revert email from OP2 for replacement of said AC on 14/05/2017 (Ex CW1/5), but did not get the said AC replaced so complainant purchased another AC on 07/06/2017 for a sum of Rs 27,490/-(Ex CW1/6). So filed this complaint for refund of the cost of AC in question Rs 36,000/-plus cost of new purchased for Rs 27,490/- with 24% per annum and compensation Rs 2 lakhs for unfair trade practice adopted by OP2 and Rs 01 lakh for mental agony and physical harassment. Also claimed Rs 25,000/-for litigation charges.

Notices served, but none appeared for OP2 despite of giving number of opportunity so preceded Ex-parte. OP1 submitted written statement and denied all the allegations of complainant were false and incorrect. It was stated that the said AC was purchased in good quality and was a sealed piece and had no manufacturing defects and was installed by their service engineer as per the company’s guidelines. It was also denied that the said AC had any problem up to 5 months and complaint was received on 28/08/2018. As AC was purchased in 2016 and had run successfully which proved that there was no defect or problems reported by complainant.

Complainant submitted rejoinder and stated that due to deficient services of OP1, complainant had to bear extra charges to purchase a new AC. Hence all the replies submitted by OP1 were totally wrong and stressed that the defective piece was sold by OP1 on the association with OP2. He prayed for refund of the cost of defective AC. Evidences were filed through her own affidavit and affirmed that all the facts and evidences were correct and true and relied on invoice of defective AC and new AC purchased with emails sent to OP1 and OP2 and also sent legal notice, so prayed for allowing her complaint (Ex CW1/1 to 6).

 

OP1 also submitted their evidences on affidavit through ShManojKumar,AuthorisedRepresentative working for OP1 stated that there was no manufacturing defect as AC had run defect or problem free for over five months. It was also stressed that manufacturer/OP2 had given product terms and conditions with one year standard warranty. Hence there was no service deficiency on the part of OP1 and OP2.

Complainant filed an application to delete OP1 from array of party which after filing reply by OP1, application was dismissed on the ground that OP1 had filed written statement and OP evidences so application could not be allowed.

Arguments were heard from AR of OP1 and counsel of complainant. After perusing material on record, order was reserved. During arguments, complainant submitted citation where it was laid down that if service provider fails to remove defects, cost to be refunded. The citations were as-

1. The Manager, Rohit Refrigeration Co. & others vsSudarsan Kumar Dey, RP 1890/2015, where it was held that service technician had to visit number of times within five months meaning thereby adding harassment to complainant and this certainlyamounts deficiency in service of service technician of OP who could not detect defect, so refund was directed with compensation.
2. M/s L G Electronic India Pvt Ltd. VsSita Ram Chaudhary, FA-1235/2015, SCDRC Punjab. In this appeal, it was laid down that only competent person could represent the Co. and could file evidences.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was admitted by OP1 that the said AC had run well for over 05 months well and there was no evidence of manufacturing defect of OP2. It could not be seen that old piece was sold by the OP1 as stated during arguments. Complainant had purchased after full satisfaction and the same Ac worked well for five months meaning thereby there was no manufacturing defect.

 

As far as purchasing a new AC was concerned, it was complainant’s own wish or requirement, but in absence of any evidence of OP2 that the said AC was not repairable no emphasis could be laid down that purchasing of new AC by complainant was necessary. As first AC was under standard warranty of one year and had developed some problem, but no service record was available, thus no liability could be fastened on OP2. Also complainant failed to prove that OP1 had sold old model by any evidence.

Though there is no merit in the complaint and so deserves dismissal, but product was under warranty so satisfactory services had to be provided by OP2 though complainant has not submitted any evidence of warranty.

 

So, OP2 is directed to provide service making AC functional and hand over the AC to complainant within 45 days with extended warranty of 6 months. There is no order to cost.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under regulation 20 (1)  of the CPR.

 

                 (Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                          Sukhdev Singh  President