Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 410/02.12.2014
Jagdish Bansal,
A-2/98, Sector-3, Rohini Delhi-110085 …Complainant
Versus
OP. M/s Schindler India Private Limited
4th Floor, B K Roy Court, 6/7 Asaf Ali Road
New Delhi-110002 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 02.12.2014
Coram: Date of Order: 13.08.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
FINAL ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
It is scheduled today for order (item no.19.)
1.(Case of complainant) ) –The complainant sought return of amount of Rs. 1,03,600/- paid despite free maintenance service agreement vide cheque dated 13.08.2014 to OP under protest. What happened the complainant and the OP had agreed installation of a lift/elevator in residential project of complainant at A2/98, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi for settled amount of Rs. 13,91,492/- with guarantee of free maintenance services for 12 months from the date of handing over the elevator, after tests and running condition. The OP handed over Schindeler lift on 07.04.2014. But there was breakdown on 30.07.2014 due to technical fault, which was checked by OP’s agent/mechanic vide service request 33529652. The OP had issued repaired quotations since there was contract of free maintenance service for 12 month but OP refused and demanded the amount. The complainant was constraint to issue the subject cheque under protest as repairs could be executed after payment. The reason given in the job card/maintenance record was totally vague and untenable.
2. (Case of OP) –The OP has denied the allegations of the complaint against it that OP is not liable for any claim or amount. The OP opposed the complaint while referring the agreement entered as well as its extracts mentioned in the written statement. As per specific Exclusion from Schindeler and undertaking of terms and conditions, of any work or replacement caused by interruption or variation of electronic point supply due to this elevator list got damaged. The OP is not responsible to change under free maintenance and components not covered under the warranty.
On 30.07.2014 the customer care of OP received complaint that subject lift is not working then Mr. Ajay Kumar/Engineer/Employee of OP visited the site and after inspection, he found that one phase power supply following in neutral wire and is coming in phase. PCB damaged due to power supply, it was apprised to the complainant. It was also apprised by the said engineer to the complainant that they had some electrical power problem and they had called an unskilled local technician without information of OP and that unskilled local technician interchanged the wire position in the main electrical switch board, which is connected to the elevator/lift. The main electric switch board was installed by the complainant and the main electric switch board always remained under controlled and supervision of complainant. (this was not denied/replied by the complainant in the rejoinder to the written statement).
3. (Evidence)- The complainant and the OP led their evidence by filing their respective affidavit of evidence by Sh. Jagdish Bansal (complainant) and Sh. Sandeep Srivastav (power of attorney holder of OP).
4.1 (Final hearing)- The parties were given opportunity to file written arguments, accordingly they filed the written arguments. They were also given opportunity to make oral submissions but complainant was not appearing for long time, however, Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate with the permission of Sh. Kapil Kumar, Advocate made the oral submissions.
4.2. At this stage the OP also filed an application that the complainant had sold the subject property and he is no more interested to pursue the complaint, notice was also directed on this application but complainant failed to appear and response the application. Moreover, on 19.07.2024 Sh. Kapil Kumar, Advocate for OP also supplemented documentary record that the subject property is with Mr. Om Prakash Goyal, with whom the OP has entered into new maintenance contract in respect of lift/elevator; the copy of that maintenance contract was taken on record besides letter dated 22.05.2024 written to Sh. Om Prakash Goyal by the OP.
5.1 (Findings)-The contentions of both the sides are considered by keeping in view the material on record as well as analyzed them. The following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The complainant alleges that the OP had made charges beyond the maintenance free agreement but on the other side the OP had counter plea that those charges were not covered under the agreement.
(ii) The OP relies upon the service report that there was change of wires contrary to the earlier fitting, the complainant was in control thereof. The complainant has not denied these allegations in the rejoinder nor any evidence has been brought to disprove this fact.
(iii) The complainant has changed his place of residence, without information to this Commission to incorporate new address nor he has been appearing for long. As appearing that after transfer of property, the complainant has lost interest in the subject elevator/lift as well as in the present complaint.
(iv) The allegations of the complaint could not be established.
5.2 In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed. The complaint is disposed off and there is no order as to costs.
6: Announced on this 13th day of August 2024 [श्र!वण 22, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[ijs-106]
