Delhi

North East

CC/111/2016

Abu Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 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. 111/16

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Abu Ahmad S/o Sh. Imtiaz Ahmad R/o R-216/2, R Block, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.         3.	United Agencies 6, Netaji Subash Marg, Darya Gang, New Delhi-110002.   Voltas Limited B-1/J2, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.   Voltas Limited Voltas House, A Block, Dr. Babasaheb, Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400033.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		22.04.2016
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		24.10.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		30.10.2017

 

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

 

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Abu Ahmed, against United Agencies- OP1, Voltas Ltd - OP2 and Voltas Ltd - OP3.
2. Facts of the present complaint are that on 06-04-2016, the complainant purchased Voltas Refrigerator for a sum of Rs. 18,300/- from authorized dealer of OP where he was assured regarding the cooling efficiency of the same. It has been stated that the complainant was shocked when the said refrigerator was not functioning properly and was not cooling the cold drinks. Immediately, the complainant visited OP1 and apprised them of the problem his request for replacement / repairs was flatly refused by OP1, stating that the company was responsible for repairs. It has been further stated that on            06-04-2015 the complainant informed OP2 where he was give complaint               No. 16040609187 and was informed that his complaint shall be attended within two days. On visit, the executive of OP checked the refrigerator and informed that the company was not responsible. It is also been stated that on 14.04.2016 the complaint was lodged vide complaint No. 16041404610 but the same was not attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. Another complaint dated 15.04.2016 was lodged vide complaint No. 16041810245 where he was assured that the same would be attended within two days. Feeling aggrieved by the non redressal of his grievance, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on part of OPs and has prayed for directions to OPs to refund / replacement of the refrigerator, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

Invoice dated 06-04-2016, copy of passport of the complainant have been annexed with the present complaint.

3. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs. OP1 was proceeded Ex-parte as no one appeared on their behalf or filed any reply despite service. OP2 and OP3 filed their reply, where they took defence that the complainant was not a consumer as the product in question was purchase for commercial use and was installed for sale and storage of cold drinks. It was also stated that as the complainant wanted the replacement of old product with new one thus no cause of action arose in the favour of the complainant. OPs have stated that the complaint was not maintainable as it was premature and devoid of cause of action as the complainant had not placed on record any service report or expert opinion to that effect. It was also stated that OP, M/s Voltas Ltd was ready to inspect the unit and in case any problem was found in the unit then the same would be repaired free of cost. It was denied that the complainant had lodged any complaint on 06-04-2015, 14-4-2016 and                    15-04-2016. Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.
4. In rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of OP2, the complainant denied all the contents of the reply and reaffirmed the averments made in the complaint.
5. Complainant examined himself and deposed on oath the averments made in the complaint. On behalf of OP2 Shri Ashok Yadav, Branch Service Manager was examined who reiterated the assertions made in their reply.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for OP2 and OP3 and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has filed a complaint with respect to the non working of the product stated to be a refrigerator whereas the invoice annexed with the complaint shows that the product purchased is “a deep freezer”. However, considering this to be a typographical error the product in question will be deep freezer. It has been stated by OP2 that the complainant is not consumer as the product was being used for commercial purpose as well as no jobsheet/service report has been annexed with the complaint. The complainant has not placed even a single document on record to prove that the product sold by OPs had some inherent defect. Further, OP2 in their written statement have shown their willingness to inspect the product and remove the defect if any, irrespective of the fact that no document supporting the allegation of the complainant has been filed alongwith the complaint. The complainant in the rejoinder has made evasive denial to the contents of the reply. Hence, the present complaint is partly allowed and OP2 is directed to inspect and repair the defect, if any, within 30 days from the date of order. Hence, the present complaint is disposed off without order as to cost.               
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  30.10.2017)         

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)      Member