Delhi

East Delhi

CC/227/2020

SUBHASH VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKUND BATH PLAZA - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.227/2020    

 

	SUBHASH VERMA E-393 MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-2 DELHI-110091	….Complainant
Versus
	MUKUND BATH PLAZA F-168 JAGATPURI MAIN ROAD SHAHDRA DELHI-110051	……OP1
	JAQUAR AND COMPANY PVT LTD BRANCH ADDRESS: D-56 DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI-110024	……OP2

               

Date of Institution	:	05.11.2020
Judgment Reserved on	:	20.02.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	22.02.2023

 

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint with respect to deficiency in service in not providing the proper sanitary ware by the OP and then by not attending the calls with respect to the complaint made by the complainant to the OPs.  The OP1 is stated to be seller of the WC and OP2 is stated to be the manufacturer of the products in dispute.    
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that on 20.06.2014, he purchased certain sanitary items along with WC vide invoice No. 442 dated 20.06.2014 from OP1, and paid an amount of Rs.14,000/- for this product but he was not issued bill of Rs.14,000/- but was issued a bill of Rs.12,444/- but on the delivery Challan, the amount of Rs.14,000/- was mentioned.  In or around May, 2020 i.e. about 6 months back from the date of filing the complaint, he noticed that there is hair line crack in the WC, and further that the seat cover had started leaving its place and was completely dislodged from its place, and it is stated that the product had 10 years warranty as given by the OPs but it developed crack after 6 years of its use.
3. Since, it was a lockdown period he could not make complaint immediately but after the lockdown period was lifted he made a complaint to the OP1, who told him that the product will be replaced free of cost but the fixation charges will not be given and also the product will not be the same, as the manufacturing of that particular design had been stopped by the OP2 but it would be almost similar, to which the complainant informed that if the product would not be of same size and design, he would have to change the whole sanitary fittings in the wall and that expense of making new tube holes in the walls, would cause him a cost of Rs.45,000/- apart from the inconvenience which the complainant would be having.  The complainant was also told to make a complaint on the Toll Free number of OP2 where he made at least 40 calls but the reply which was always being received was that some person would be visiting and infact some person did visit the house of the complainant and subsequently he got a message that complaint was been resolved but in fact no complaint was resolved and aggrieved by such act of non-responding either by OP1 and OP2 the complainant  has filed the present complaint against both the OPs thereby claiming the entire amount paid by him along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation charges. 
4. OP was served and even one Sh. Radheyshyam on behalf of OPs received the copy of the complaint but none appeared on behalf of OPs after having received the copies on 11.10.2021 nor the Written Statement was filed and OPs were accordingly proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2022.    
5. The complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit.
6. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records. 
7. The bill dated 20.06.2014 has been perused and it is for an amount of Rs.37,455/-.  The Challan which has been filed, contains the value of the WC Model No. 0114 as Rs.14,000/- this WC stated to have developed an hair line cracks after about 6 years of its use.  The complaint of the complainant is that it had 10 years warranty and since there is a hair line crack in the WC which has even been observed by the service person who visited the house of the complainant, but neither the complaint was resolved nor it was replaced and as such he has filed the present complaint.      
8. The Warranty Certificate has been attached and it co-relates with the facts mentioned by the complainant that the WC had the warranty for 10 years as given by OP2.  The complaint of the complainant is that WC  had developed a crack and when this fact was brought to the notice of OP1 i.e. the seller, it advised the complainant that he should contact the manufacturer and in any case the product would be replaced but not of the same make and when he contacted with the OP2 they although sent a person but then never resolved the complaint. 
9. From the facts as have come on record a crack has developed into the WC after about 6 years of its use.  How much the said crack may be fatal is not mentioned but the apprehension in the mind of the complainant would always be there particularly when the warranty of the product was 10 years.  Since, the OP has not turned up to put its defence, the version of the complainant has to be taken as true and if the OP would have put its defence, the Commission would have been in better position to appreciate as to whether developing of such crack after 6 years of its use is covered within the warranty or not.  Not only this, despite having given the warranty for 10 years, OP1 claimed that the manufacturing of this product has now been stopped by the company/ OP2 and some other product would be given which would be of similar nature and therefore contention of the complainant that if some other Model is given then the complainant had to change all its accessories/ fittings so as to install a new WC, which would cost him about Rs.45,000/- seems to be well found.    
10. Although this aspect is remote, yet the contention has some valid points that if the OP had given warranty of a product for 10 years then it has to keep certain products in its stocks  for which the warranty has been issued. 
11. Therefore, both the contention of the complainant are well found and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs.  Simultaneously, it is matter of record that complainant has used the product for about 6 years and 100% return therefore would not be logical.  It has not come on record, if the complainant has replaced it or not.  Until and unless it had been replaced and amount so spent by the complainant has not been put on record, such amount of compensation cannot be granted.
12. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that the OPs be directed to pay monetary benefit only to the complainant instead of replacement.
13. Therefore, Commission hereby directs that both the OPs are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service and they both are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. towards the cost of product and Rs.7,500/- towards compensation including legal expenses jointly and severally.      
14. Copy of this Order be sent to all the parties free of cost and OPs are directed to comply the same within 30 days of having received the Order and in case the amount is not paid within 30 days OPs would pay interest @12% p.a. on the entire amount jointly and severally.       

File be consigned to Record Room

Announced on 22.02.2023