Delhi

North East

CC/94/2015

Shri Satish Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Technoking Home Appliances - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 94/15

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Satish Kumar S/o Late Ram Swaroop H.No. B-80, East Nathu Colony, Gali No. 5, Near Gurudwara, Opp. Tyagi Dairy, Delhi-110093		Complainant
		Versus
	1               2       3	Technoking Home Appliances A-69, Hardev Puri, 100 Feet Shahdara Delhi 110093   Also at : H.No. 194, Street No. 14, Balbir Nagar Extension, Nala Paar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032   Intex Technology India Ltd. B-81, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110001   Service Centre,  Plot No. 23, First Floor, Veer Savarkar Block, Opposite Metro Pillar No. 60, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		19.03.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		21.09.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		22.09.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

 

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Satish Kumar, the complainant against Technoking Home Appliances – OP1, Intex Technology India Ltd – OP2.

Brief facts of the complaint are that on 9.3.14 the complainant purchased intex CTV Model CTV T21USAV for Rs. 7,500/- vide retail invoice No.  R4715. The said product was under one year warranty. It has stated that after six months of purchase there was problem with the said product for which the complainant approached OP1 where the complainant was informed that the said product was beyond repairs. It has further been stated that the complainant approached OP1 & OP2 but his grievance was not addressed. He was informed by the customer care executive that the product was not reflected under warranty.  Despite complaints on 29.10.2014 vide complaint number 4102990000049 & 4110490000168 and on 7.11.2014 vide complaint number 4111490000262, the complaint of complainant was neither resolved nor the product was repaired. Hence, the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant has prayed replacement or refund of cost of product,                  Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 9.3.2014 alongwith complaint.

2. OPs were proceeded ex parte as they chose not to appear despite service.
3. Ex parte evidence was filed by the complainant, where he has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and has relied on retail invoice annexed as Annexure as C1.
4. On 29.1.2016 the complainant sought time to place on record the warranty card but on subsequent dates he stopped appearing.
5. We have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has alleged that the product was under warranty and OPs have failed to repair the product. The complainant had failed to prove his case as OPs are ex parte. It is settled principle of law that the case of the complainant has to stand on its own legs. The complainant has failed to place on record any document to substantiate his allegation that the product was under warranty OP have failed to deliver services. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  22.09.2017)         

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member