Haryana

Karnal

CC/693/2021

Advocate Sudip Diwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahavir Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Lovesh Saini

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 693 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.13.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:12.09.2023

 

Advocate Sudip Diwan son of late Shri J.k. Diwan, resident of house no.1039, sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Mahavir Electronics, 55, Red cross Market, Old G.T. Road, Karnal through its authorized signatory. Mobile no.94169-11047, 94665-40121.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Lovesh Saini, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Ashwani Kumar Popli, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Dr. Rekha Chauhary, Member)

ORDER:

                  

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant had purchased one router from the OP on the false assurance of the OP, containing model D-link DIR650IN Wireless N300 router with one year warranty on 06.09.2021, cost of Rs.1300/- to the first party and the OP sent an engineer to complainant’s house for the installation of the abovesaid D-link DIR650IN Wireless N300 router. Moreover, complainant asked for the original bill of the abovesaid router from the OP but OP lingered the matter by make false excuses and did not provide its original bill till today. OP has supplied substandard router with inherent manufacturing defect. The Airtel engineer informed that it seems to be defected router and is poor in its craftsmanship having inherent manufacturing defect not capable of producing 5G transmission as promised by the OP while making the same. In fact, it was giving a speed of 50-60 Mbps only instead of offering a speed of 300Mbps to the complainant (as clearly mentioned on the said router box) that should be compatible 5G router that would have flawlessly worked with 5G wi-fi Airtel Xstream Fiber network. The installation of the abovesaid router cost Rs.600/- to the complainant and has been informed by the Airtel technician/engineer that it has got the capacity of 2.5 GHz. The complainant is a self employed person and thus, bought the above mentioned router to fulfill his professional duties and due to the poor speed of the router, sold by the OP on the false assurance of the high speed of 300Mbps, has resulted into a loss of Rs.10,000/-. After nearly one month of the installation of the abovesaid router, complainant informed the OP about the inherent defect in the abovesaid router. The same was get repaired by the OP and the complainant received the repaired D-link DIR650IN Wireless N300 router in the last week of October, but the same problem continued to persist. The complainant visited the office of OP and intimated in this regard but till date no needful has been done and the router of the complainant is having inherent manufacturing defect, which required to be replaced with a new one. Then complainant sent a legal notice to OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the question of accountability of giving service to the complainant during warranty period of the product on the part of the OP does not arise at all as the complainant neither has arrayed the authorized service centre of the product company nor to the manufacturing company of the product, in this case, who are jointly or severally responsible for giving services to the complainant during the warranty period of the product. It is further pleaded that OP is issuing bill to all of his customers at the spot on the counter at the time of purchase of product. The question of non-availability of Bill book does not arise at all, because after launching GST in India, the OP is issuing bills to all of his customers which is being generated through Computer Software at the spot on the courter at the time of purchase of product. It is further pleaded that the OP has sold the sealed pack product to the complainant, which has been manufactured by D-Link company and the responsibility of providing services during warranty period of the product is upon the authorized service centre or the company of the product itself, there is no responsibility on the part of the OP being only Retailer of the Product. The responsibility of performance of the product is upon Manufacturing Company as well as upon the authorized Service Centre of the Company of the product.  It is further pleaded that complainant never visited the business premises of the OP. so, the question of removal of fault as well as replacement of alleged product on the part of the OP does not arise at all. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of warranty card dated 06.09.2021 Ex.C1, copy of customer delivery challan dated 29.10.2021 Ex.C2, copy of courier receipt dated 05.11.2021 (legal notice) Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 05.11.2021 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 26.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Purshotam Pal Gupta Ex.OP1/A, copy of tax invoice dated 06.09.2021 Ex.OP1, copy of warranty card dated 06.09.2021 Ex.OP2, copy of courier receipt dated 05.11.2021 Ex.OP3, copy of GST registration certificate Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 06.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued on 06.09.2021, complainant had purchased one router from the OP for the consideration of Rs.1300/- with the warranty of one year warranty. OP installed the same in the premises of the complainant. OP has not issued the original bill for the said router despite repeated requests. OP has supplied a substandard router with inherent manufacturing defect. It was giving a speed of 50-60 Mbps only instead of offering a speed of 300Mbps which is compatible as 5G router that would have flawlessly worked with 5G wi-fi Airtel Xstream Fiber network. After nearly one month of the installation of the abovesaid router, complainant informed the OP about the inherent defect in the abovesaid router. The same was get repaired by the OP but the same problem continued to persist. The complainant visited the office of OP and requested to replace the router with new one but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and misbehaved with him and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP has sold the sealed pack product to the complainant, which has been manufactured by D-Link company and the responsibility of providing services during warranty period of the product is upon the authorized service centre or the company, there is no responsibility on the part of the OP being only Retailer of the Product. He further argued that complainant has neither arrayed as a party to the authorized service centre nor to the manufacturing company of the product, who are jointly or severally responsible for giving services to the complainant during the warranty period.  He further argued that complainant never visited the OP, so the question of removal of fault as well as replacement of alleged product on the part of the OP does not arise at all and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, on 06.09.2021, complainant purchased a D-link DIR650IN Wireless N300 router, for the consideration of Rs.1300/- from the OP.

10.           As per the version of the complainant, the router in question purchased by the complainant is having 300 Mbps speed but router in question has 2.5 GHz having manufacturing defect. 

11.           To prove his case, complainant has relied upon on the documents, copy of warranty card Ex.C1 dated 06.09.2021, copy of customer delivery challan Ex.C2 dated 29.10.2021, copy of courier receipt Ex.C3 of legal notice dated 05.11.2021 and copy of legal notice Ex.C4 dated 05.11.2021. On perusal of the record, the complainant had purchased D-link DIR650IN Wireless N300 router on 06.09.2021, which is not compatible for 5G wi-fi Airtel Xstream Fiber network. To rebut the above documents, OP has pleaded that there was no 5G wi-fi system in existence at that time and the same was launched on 01.10.2022. But OP has admitted the fact that the router has a capacity of 2.5 GHz not compatible for 5G network while the complainant during the course of arguments has placed on record photocopy of Box which clearly shows that the router is having 300 Mbps speed compatible for 5G wi-fi network system. It has been proved on record that the complainant wants to purchase the router of 300Mbps more powerful to meet the future contingencies. OP has sold the said router with the assurance of having speed of 300 Mbps. Hence, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he has no need of the new router and prayed for refund of the cost of the router alongwith installation of charges i.e. Rs.2000/-(Rs.1300 cost of router and Rs.700/- installation charges).

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and towards the litigation expense. Complainant is also directed to return the router in question alongwith accessories to the OP. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.09.2023   

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                          Member                            Member