Delhi

North East

CC/145/2021

Smt. Bimla Rathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Balaji Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2024

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.145/21

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Bimla Rathi, W/o Sh. Madan Lal Rathi, R/o D 34 A, St. No. 7, West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.           3.       4.         5.	Sh. Balaji Enterprises Through its Proprietor, B 12/A, West Jyoti Nagar Extn. Main Loni Road Durgapuri Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi 110094   Crystal Solution Through its Owner Principal Incharge 33 Shalimar Park Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi-110032 (Deleted)   Manager (Office In-charge) Videocon Co., Plot No. 296, Udyog Vihar Phase 2, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015 (Deleted)   The Manager Videocon Industries Ltd. Plot No. 248, Phase No. 4, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon , Haryana 122015   The Manager Videocon Industries Ltd. E 1 Block, 12th Floor, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055	Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

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

11.10.21 05.08.24 30.09.24

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 27.10.16 Complainant purchased Videocon LED vide invoice no. 3370 for sum of Rs. 16,000/- having warranty of 5 years from Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that after two months of purchase, above said LED was not functioning well and after 19.03.20 said LED has completely stopped working. Thereafter Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.2 on different dates. The Complainant had lodged complaint many times but neither the said LED was replaced nor the amount of LED was refunded by Opposite Party.  The Complainant had sent notices to Opposite Parties, the notice was returned by Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3and Opposite Party No. 4 & 5 received the notices but no reply was given by them. The said LED was in warranty period and the Complainant had lodged many complaints but neither the said LED was replaced nor the amount of LED was refunded by Opposite Parties. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed either to replace the LED in question with a new one or to refund the amount of said LED of Rs. 16,000/-. The Complainant has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. Notices were served to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.5 while Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 were deleted at the request of Complainant vide order dated 11.10.2022 and the Complainant filed amended memo of parties.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 and Opposite Party No.5 and were proceeded against Ex-Parte vide order dated 08.11.23 and 25.07.22 respectively.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

4. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.1 being the seller of the subject product denied all the allegations and submitted that they were never contacted by the Complainant nor any letter was written to them, hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint being false.

Evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

5. Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

Despite giving several opportunities Opposite Party No.1 failed to file its evidence. Therefore, its right to file evidence is closed vide order dated 25.09.23.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Husband of Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant.
7. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased the subject product (LED) in Oct, 2016 with warranty of 5 years from Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged by the Complainant that just after two months of purchase, above said LED was not functioning well and after 19.03.20 said LED has completely stopped working. The Complainant had lodged complaint many times but allegedly neither the said LED was replaced nor the amount of LED was refunded by Opposite Party. 
8. From the perusal of the pleadings and evidence led, it is revealed that the Complainant has only filed copy of purchase Invoice, copy of warranty card with tax invoice of extended warranty, copy of handwritten list of calls made to Opposite Party and copy of legal notice allegedly sent to Opposite Party. These documents show that the Complainant had purchased the subject product with five years warranty.
9. The contention of the Complainant is that the product started giving problems just after two months of purchase but from 19.03.2020, said LED has completely stopped working. It is claimed that Opposite Party was intimated regarding that and several complaints were lodged but said LED was neither replaced nor the amount of LED was refunded by Opposite Party. The perusal of the material on record shows that the said contention has not been supported by any documentary proof. The Complainant has not shown even a single complaint whatsoever for the whole period of five years. The Complainant has merely filed one handwritten list of calls with certain dates allegedly made which cannot be considered as cogent proof. 
10. Since the Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of her claim that the product in question was defective/ faulty/not functional and despite her complaints, asking Opposite Parties to replace the same, Opposite Parties failed to resolve the issue making Opposite Parties liable to be deficient in services.
11. In view of above, we find that the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove her case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
12.   In view of the above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of services on the part of any of the Opposite Parties, hence, no case is made out for deficiency in services against any of the Opposite Parties.
13.  Thus, in view thereof, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. Order announced on 30.09.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)