Haryana

Rohtak

403/2014

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Shri Vardhman Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

03 Jul 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak.
Rohtak, Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. 403/2014
 
1. Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh s/o sh. Chattar Singh R/o Vill. Gharothi Distt. Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1. Shri Vardhman Electrical
1. Shri Vardhman Electrical, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak. 2. PEP Infotech Limited Shankar Chowk, Delhi Road, Meerut 250001, Ph.0121-2400792.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 403.

                                                          Instituted on     : 05.11.2014.

                                                          Decided on       : 06.07.2015.

 

Ajit Singh s/o sh. Chattar Singh R/o Vill. Gharothi Distt. Rohtak.

 

                                                          ………..Complainant.

 

                             Vs.

 

 

  1. Shri Vardhman Electrical, Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak.
  2. PEP Infotech Limited Shankar Chowk, Delhi Road, Meerut 250001, Ph.0121-2400792.

 

                                                     ……….Opposite parties.

 

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 exparte.

                  

                                      ORDER

 

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

 

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased an Inverter from the opposite party no.1 on 30.04.2011 for a sum of Rs.4500/-. It is averred that the alleged inverter became defective within 3 months and the opposite party no.1 gave an another inverter temporarily and the same also became defective. The opposite party no.1 repeated the same practice for 2-3 times and after that gave his old inverter after repair of the same which also worked only till June 2014 and became defective.  It is averred that when the complainant had gone to repair the same, it was came to his knowledge that it was of local company and no spare part of the same was available at Rohtak or at Delhi. As such it is averred that the opposite party no.1 cheated the complainant by telling him that the inverter was of company. It is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to give the new inverter alongwith compensation to the complainant.

2.                          On notice opposite party no.2 did not appear and as such after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that there was warranty of two years on the inverter from the date of purchase which has expired on 29.04.2013 hence the present complaint is not maintainable. It is averred that the inverter in question has minor defect, which was removed during warranty. It is denied that the inverter given to the complainant was defective and the answering opposite party replaced it two or three times or that the inverter sold by the answering opposite party was of local company.  It is averred that the inverter in question is still in the custody of complainant and he has admitted that it has stopped working in the June 2014 after expiry of warranty period.  It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                         Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.C1, document Ex.C2 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 did not tender any evidence and made a statement that the opposite party no.1 is only the dealer of the company and if there is any manufacturing defect, it is the liability of the company i.e. opposite party no.2.

5.                          We have heard the complainant as well as ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one inverter from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.4500/- on dated 30.04.2011 with warranty of two years as is proved from the copy of bill Ex.C3. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant the inverter in question was defective from the very beginning and had worked only for 5-6 months and that the opposite party no.1 replaced it two or three times but the defect could not be removed. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 is that the inverter in question was having minor defects which were removed during warranty and that the liability, if any, is of manufacturer.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the reply filed by opposite party no.1, the defect in the inverter appeared during warranty period which was removed. Hence the defect in the inverter in question appeared during warranty period but the same could not removed by the opposite parties.  It is also on record that opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service of notice and as such it is presumed that opposite party no.2 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled against the opposite party no.2 regarding defects in the alleged inverter stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the exparte complaint upheld”, as per 2014(3)CLT178 titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors & others Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Vehicle repeatedly taken to service station for repairs-The manufacturing defect, must be assumed-Onus of proof shifts upon OP, and it is further held that: “Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the bounden duty of the people, like Ops to appoint their own experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect”, as per 2014(1)CLT588  titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others  Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, Mumbai has held that: “Manufacturing defect-Expert evidence-Principal of res ipsa loquitur-Failure of compressor of the AC within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amount to manufacturing defect and principle of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied and it is further held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”.

8.                          In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of inverter i.e. Rs.4500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.11.2014 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and in turn the complainant shall hand over the inverter in question to the opposite parties. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

9.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

06.072015.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                         

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

 

                                                                  

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.