Delhi

East Delhi

CC/362/2015

SHRI GURU - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNASPAREILS GREENLAND - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2018

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.  362/15

 

Shri Guru Dutt Roy

S/o Shri Sarana Nand Roy

R/o SRA, 24 B, Shipra Revera

Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP

At present:

R/o 99, J-Extension

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                                ….Complainants

 

Vs.

 

1. M/s. Sanspareils Greenlands

Plot No. 1250, Gagol Road

(Opp. Bhimrao Ambedkar Airstrip),

gangol Road, Partapur

Merut – 260 103

(Through its Managing Director)  

 

2. M/s. Goodwill Sports

Shop No. 10, Main Kasdori Market

East Vinod Nagar

Near Mayur Vihase Phase-II

New Delhi – 110 091

(Through its Managing Director/Proprietor Mr. Arvind)             …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.05.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 05.01.2018

Judgement Passed on: 08.01.2018

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 Guru Dutt Roy against        M/s. Sanspareils Greenlands (OP-1) and M/s. Goodwill Sports (OP-2), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a S.G. Cricket Bat, Model No. SG VS319 SPARK (hereinafter called as “the Product”), manufactured by M/s. Sanspareils Greenlands (OP-1), from M/s. Goodwill Sports (OP-2) for a consideration of Rs. 1,400/- vide cash memo/bill        no. 1014 dated 09.09.2014 and product brand visibility sticker                  no. 8904075817452.  OP-2 promised to provide one year full warranty/ guarantee of the product as provided by OP-1.  The complainant verified the same from the website of OP-1. 

            It was stated that within a month of purchase, the product had cracked.  OP-2 deposited the product on 17.10.2014 and assured the complainant to remove the defect as soon as possible.  The complainant visited several times to OP-2, but they neither removed the defect of the product nor replaced the same nor returned even the defective product to the complainant. 

            The complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.04.2015 for which they sent the reply and denied all the facts.  Hence, he has prayed for directions to OP to replace the product with a new one; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and torture; compensation of              Rs. 50,000/- for not playing the important tournament and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation. 

3.         In the WS, filed on behalf of OP-1, they have taken various pleas such as OP-2 was neither an authorized dealer nor a distributor of the answering respondent; as per the company policy, the warrant on cricket bats was only limited to manufacturing defects, which was assessed by the company.  In that case, the bat was not sent to OP-1 for inspection. 

            It was further stated that on the invoice, it was clearly mentioned that warranty was on handle.  On the website of the company, nowhere mentioned about the warranty and the documents attached by the complainant with the complaint were not from the website of the answering respondent.  There was no relationship between OP-1 and OP-2.  Other facts have also been denied.    

            Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-2.  No reply was filed on their behalf, hence they were proceeded ex-parte. 

4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of cash memo/bill no. 1014 dated 09.09.2014 (Ex.CW1/1), visibility sticker bearing no. 8904075817452 (Ex.CW1/2), copy of verification of warrantee/guarantee of the product from the website of OP-1 (Ex.CW1/3), copy  of reply of legal notice and its postal receipts(Ex.CW1/4 and 1/5), copy of reply of OP-1 (Ex.CW1/6) and copy of tracking report (Ex.CW1/7 and 1/8).

            In defence, OP-1 have examined Mr. Puneet Anand, Director of   OP-1, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS. 

6.         We have perused the file as neither the complainant nor OP have appeared to argue.  From the evidence on record, it is noticed that the complainant have purchased a cricket bat from M/s. Goodwill Sports     (OP-2), however,  M/s. Sanspareils Greenlands (OP-1) have denied that        M/s. Goodwill Sports (OP-2) were their authorized dealer.  From the copy of the cash memo, it does not show that M/s. Goodwill Sports (OP-2) were the authorized dealer of OP-1.  That being so, no liability can be fastened upon M/s.Sanspareils Greenlands (OP-1).  As far as liability, if any of OP-2 was concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the cricket bat was defective or has broken due to any manufacturing defect.  Therefore, no deficiency on the part of both OP-1 as well as OP-2 can be attributed.  That being so, the complaint is devoid of any merit and 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