Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/642

GOPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPER ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 31.11.2017

Complaint Case. No. 642/17                                               Date of order:    11.09.2018

IN  MATTER OF

 

Gopal Singh S/O Shri Darshan Singh R/O H.No. 50A, Khasra No.11, Bharat Vihar, Chander Vihar, Nilothi, New Delhi-110041                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Complainant

VERSUS

M/S Super Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office 44/2B Krishna Puri, Outer Ring Road, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018

                                                                                                                       

Opposite party-1

 

Godrej & Boyce MFG. Co. Ltd., Appliance Division, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli (West), Mumbai-400079

                                                Opposite party-2

                                                                                   

                                    ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

            The complainant filed present complaint u/s 12 of the CPA against Ops for deficiency in service. Briefly case  of the complainant is that he purchased washing machine make and model no. Godrej W/M 720CT EXCEL GREY from Op-1 for sum of Rs. 11,000/- dated 07.11.2015. The machine developed fault after one year and the complainant lodged complaint with Op telephonically. The Engineer  visited the premises of the complainant and repaired the same. However after 10-15 days the drain motor of the machine stopped working. The complainant again lodged the complaint but the op demanded Rs. 2,000/- for the repair. The complainant told the Engineer that the machine is within warranty till 06.11.2017 but still the Op refused to repair the product in dispute and told that it is out of warranty. Thereafter the complainant lodged several complaints telephonically to customer care vide complaints no. 552410 dated 31.03.2017, 552859 dated 02.04.2017 , 553509 dated 05.04.2017, 55409 dated 08.04.2017 and 558417 dated 25.04.2017 , Jo505560682 dated 05.05.2017 and no. JI305562813 dated 13.05.2017 But till date the Op failed to repair the washing machine. The complainant also served legal notice dated 12.07.2017 but still the grievance of the complainant is not redressed by the Op. Hence the present complaint for directions to the Op to return the invoice amount of machine pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 25,000/- litigation expenses.     

 

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs but none appeared on its behalf and  were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.05.2018.

When the complainant was asked to lead evidence he tendered his affidavit dated 26.07.2018 reiterating the facts of the complaint. He also relied on invoice dated 07.11.2015.

We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.   

The controversy involved in the present complaint is as to whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed or not. The case of the complainant is that the Op refused to repair the washing machine free of charge on ground that  it is out of warranty. The complainant asserted that the warranty period is for two years from date of invoice that is from 07.11.2015 to 06.11.2017.

From the perusal of the invoice it reveals that the complainant purchased Godrej W/M 720CT Excel grey. Except the affidavit of complainant there is nothing on record to support the version of the complainant.   But there is no cogent material on record to show that the machine is within warranty.  Therefore, the complainant is unable to show that there is any deficiency on part of the Ops. The mere assertion of the complainant that machine is within warranty is without corroboration from any document and complainant has miserably failed to prove the same.  Hence  there is no deficiency on part of OPs.      

   In light of above discussion and observations the complaint has no merit. Resultantly same is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.  

 

Order pronounced on :- 11.09.2018

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              (K.S. MOHI)                                                                                                                       

MEMBER                                                                                                          PRESIDENT