Delhi

East Delhi

CC/143/2022

AKSHAY DUBEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

BEE-KAY ELECTRICALS - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110092

 

 

C.C. No. 143/2022

 

 

	Akshay Dubey, R/o Flat No. 101, DMRC Stagg Quarter, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096.	..…Complainant
Versus
	M/s Bee Kay Electricals, At 1853/12, Surya Bazar, Bhagirath Place, Delhi-110006.	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 22.03.2022

Judgment Reserved on: 08.05.2023

Judgment Passed on: 09.05.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Judgment By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

The present complaint is filed by the complainant against OP for selling a defective water purifier to him and not providing services for repair or replacement of the same despite there being a valild AMC done by the OP1 against consideration. The complainant prayed for a refund of the cost of the defective product along with compensation for mental agony and harassment.

1. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a water purifier of the brand name, Aqua Grand from OP for Rs.2700/- and has also taken AMC for the product for an amount of Rs.1300/, and the total amount of Rs. 4000/- was paid to the OP. The product warranty was of 12 months. The aqua guard was installed on 14.04.2021 and within a period of one year in October 2021, some defects arose, which were informed to the OP for repair and it was also requested that if that’s not possible, then replacement the product or refund the price.
2. The complainant alleged that despite several visits and calls to the OP, neither any serviceman nor any employee of OP visited the place of the complainant for the purpose of repairing or replacement of water purifier. A representation/notice dated 22.12.2021 was also served upon OP but no one from OP had visited. The complainant submits that he has been harassed by the OP as he has been sold a defective product under the name of Aqua Grand with mala fide intention, misrepresenting that it is a known brand and has extorted money of Rs.4000/- from him. OP has also failed to provide the service to the complainant for repair despite taking AMC. The complainant submits that the act and conduct of the OP amount to a deficiency in service on its part which had caused mental pain, and agony to him and therefore he seeks a refund of money of Rs. 4000/- towards the defective water purifier, compensation for Rs.50,000/- for causing mental pain and agony along with litigation cost.
3. OP despite service has not filed a written statement within limitation and vide order dated 13.01.2023, the application of the OP for seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed and the written statement so filed by the OP was ordered as not to be read for the purpose of its defence, however, OP was always within his right to appear and argue on the legal aspects only. Later, OP filed its written submissions but no legal aspects ware taken by him as his defence.
4. The complainant has filed his evidence and in support of his case, has filed the notice/ representation dated 22.12.21, along with acknowledgement and receipt of payment of Rs.2700/- and Rs. 4,000 /- for the payment of the product as Ex. CW1/1.
5. This Commission has perused the documents on record. The complainant has filed two receipts issued by OP dated 14.04.2021 bearing number 904 of Rs.2700/- towards payment of water purifier and another receipt no. 995 amounting to Rs.4000/  showing the payment for the water purifier and service for the same. The complainant failed to place on record any warranty card given by the OP. This is noted that the amount paid by the complainant for the new water purifier which was purchased on 14.04.2021 and within six months in October 2021, the complainant had found issues with it, and the same has been brought to the knowledge of OP. As any prudent buyer, the complainant has paid full consideration as demanded by OP expecting to get a new & defect-free product. The payment of an extra amount of Rs.1300/- has also been paid by the complainant for getting services for the product which were also not given to him by OP. This is also pertinent to note that OP has not given any warranty with the new product, purchased for full consideration, which acts amount to unfair trade practices on its part.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has all the rights to enjoy the benefits of the product that he has purchased and also to get the services for the same, in lieu of the consideration paid by him as demanded by OP, anddefects in product and deficiency in service on the part of OP has deprived him of using his new product. Moreover, OP has not rectified the same despite complaints by the complainant within six months of its use.Therefore, OP is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services and directed to refund OP to pay
   1. 90% of the product value which is Rs. 2430/- and
   2. Rs.1300/- charged for providing services and
   3. Rs.2500/- towards mental agony and harassment which shall include litigation costs.

The complainant would return the product to the OP simultaneously.

7. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its compliance.
8. A copy of the order is given to the parties as per CPA rules, 2019 and thereafter the file is consigned to the record room after uploading the order on the website.
9. The order contains 04 pages for each beer with our signature.

Pronounced on 09.05.2023.