Delhi

East Delhi

CC/460/2014

PRADEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

USHA INTERNATIONAL - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 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. 460/14

 

Shri Pradeep Tiwari

House No. X-3652/8

Shanti Mohalla

Gali No. 4, Gandhi Nagar

Delhi – 110 031                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Usha International Limited

Regd. Off.: Surya Kiran Building

19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi   

 

2. Shri H.N. Aggarwal

513/26, Main Road

Gandhi Nagar (Near Police Station)

Delhi – 110 031                                                               …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 16.05.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 06.09.2018

Judgement Passed on: 11.09.2018

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 Pradeep Tiwari against           M/s. Usha International Ltd. (OP-1) and Shri H.N. Aggarwal (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

3. The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a ‘Usha’ sewing machine on 31.05.2013 from Shri H.N. Aggarwal (OP-2) with one year guarantee.

            It has been stated that after five months of purchase, there was some problem in the said machine.  The complaint for the same was registered on 30.11.2013 with M/s.Usha International Ltd. (OP-2) vide complaint no. C0313C04588 and the same was repaired.  After ten days, again there was problem in the machine and the same was repaired by  OP-1 vide complaint no. C13121301585 dated 13.12.2013, but the problem continued to persist.  When the complainant registered the complaint third time with OP-1 vide complaint no. C14050802125 on 15.08.2014, they refused to repair the same.

            It was stated that due to manufacturing defect, the machine, the machine was not working properly.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP-1 to refund Rs. the cost of machine i.e. Rs. 2,795/- alongwith interest; compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.   

4. In the written statement, filed on behalf of M/s. Usha International Limited (OP-1), they have stated that the complainant has not filed any affidavit alongwith the complaint. 

It was also stated that as per terms and conditions, OP has rendered its after sales service to the complainant from time to time during the warranty period.Other facts have also been denied.

5.  

6.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of receipt (Annexure-A), copy of warranty card (Annexure-B) and company letter/service letter (Annexure-C).   

            In defence, M/s. Usha International Ltd. (OP-1) have examined    Shri Kamal Jain, Sales Administrative Head (North) of OP-1, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

6.         We have heard complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for           M/s. Usha International Ltd. (OP-1) and have perused the material placed on record.  At the outset, it is noticed from the proceedings that complainant have made Shri H.N. Aggarwal. (OP-2) as one of the party, but no order has been passed in the daily orders against OP-2, though, they did not file any reply/appear.  Since they did not file any reply and put their appearance, they stands proceeded ex-parte. 

            It has been argued on behalf of complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the machine which did not get it rectified on getting it repaired twice by M/s. Usha International Ltd. (OP-1). 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for M/s. Usha International Ltd.  (OP-1)  have argued that there was no manufacturing defect and the complaints of the complainant were attended from time to time.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant as well as Shri Kamal Jain, Sales Administrative Head (North) of M/s. Usha International Ltd.  (OP-1).  From the testimony of the complainant, it is evident that complainant got the machine repaired on 30.11.2013, however, he has not deposed on affidavit as to when he visited/wrote to the company again with regard to any defect in the machine.  The testimony of Shri Kamal Jain, Sales Administrative Head (North) show that they have provided after sale service to the complainant and repairs were carried out and there was no material defect so as to render the product with manufacturing defect. 

            Thus, from the testimony of complaint as well as Shri Kamal Jain, Sales Administrative Head (North), it comes out that whenever the complainant have made any complaint to the company, they have rectified the defect.  There is nothing on record to show that there was any manufacturing defect.  That being so, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of M/s. Usha International Ltd. (OP-1).  Thus, the complaint has no merit 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