BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 611 of 2022      

                                                          Date of Institution: 04.10.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:   26.04.2023. 

Ajay Pal Singh aged about 36 years son of Sh. Jag Chanan Singh, resident of M.C. Colony, Sirsa.

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. A to Z Solutions 2021-22, NH-9, Near Dumra Cold Store, VPO Moriwala Hisar Road, Sirsa through its authorized person/ Director Mob. 98121-00461.

2. Voltbek Home Appliances, Private Limited Voltas House “A” Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokei, Mumbai- 4000033 through its Manager/ Director/ authorized person.

                  ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER                    

   SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA… ……….MEMBER               

Present:         Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for complainant.

Opposite parties already exparte.

ORDER

          The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.       In brief, the case of complainant is that on 04.08.2022 complainant visited store/ shop of op no.1 for purchasing the washing machine of LG company. The op no.1 convinced him for purchase of washing machine of Voltas company which is manufactured by op no.2 and op no.1 assured him that the product has five years manufacturing warrantee and if any problem is found, then within a period of 21 days the washing machine will be reploaced or amount will be refunded. That complainant while believing on assurance of op no.1 purchased 14 Kg voltas Semi automatic washing machine and paid total sum of Rs.15,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.250/- was charged for delivery of product at the residence of complainant. It was also assured by op that the bill was to be delivered at the time of delivery of washing machine. It is further averred that on 05.08.2022 op no.1 delivered the machine at the residence of complainant and when complainant saw the invoice bearing no. 633, he found that it was of 02.08.2022. Thereafter, complainant contacted op no.1 but op no.1 again assured the complainant to contact for any time of grievance. That on 06.08.2022 i.e. on the next day of delivery of washing machine when complainant started the washing machine its drier started creating huge noise and high sound. It is further averred that complainant contacted op no.1 and made complaint to op no.2 vide complaint No. 22080601307 then op no.1 started making false excuses by saying that op will get it repaired from mechanic. The complainant requested the op that just within one day of use it started creating problem on the first day of use then how it will work for long time then op no.1 misbehaved with complainant and refused to solve the grievance of complainant. It is further averred that ops are well aware that washing is under warranty period and despite that ops have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of warranty and to remove the genuine grievance of complainant and in this way the ops have failed to provide due and proper services to the complainant. That there was total deficiency in the services of the ops as they intentionally refused to replace the washing machine and complainant has been put to suffer financial loss and mental agony. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Initially op no.1 appeared in person and sought adjournment for filing written statement. Op no.2 did not appear despite notice sent through registered cover which was duly delivered to op no.2 and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter when the case was fixed for filing written statement on behalf of op no.1, none also appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.

4.       Complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents i.e. tax invoice Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3 and postal receipts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.       The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on file tax invoice Ex.C2, the perusal of which reveals that on 02.08.2022 complainant purchased the washing machine in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.14,750/- and according to complainant said machine is manufactured by op no.2. The complainant also alleges that though he visited the shop of op no.1 for purchasing the machine in question on 04.08.2022 but in the bill, the date of purchase of washing machine is mentioned as 02.08.2022. The complainant has also alleged that an amount of Rs.250/- was also charged from him for delivery of the washing machine at his house. According to the complainant there was defect in the washing machine since very beginning as just after one day of its purchase he faced problems of huge noise and high sound in the washing machine in question and the ops have failed to redress his grievances despite his several requests. The complainant has also placed on file text message received by him from the Voltas company in which it was clearly intimated to him that his washing machine is beyond repair. The said message is of dated 06.08.2022 i.e. after one day of purchase of washing machine. So, it is duly proved on record that washing machine in question purchased by complainant was having such a defect since from the day of its purchase and washing machine is not repairable. Even the complainant also sent legal notice dated 16.08.2022 to the ops for redressal of his grievances but ops have failed to do so. Further more, the ops have also failed to appear before this Commission despite notices and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the pleadings as well as evidence led by complainant against the ops goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. So, the complainant has duly proved his case and ops are found deficient in service and they have caused unfair trade practice towards the complainant. As such complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the washing machine in question from the ops.

7.       In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.14,750/- (as per invoice Ex.C2) i.e. price of the washing machine in question to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to the above said amount of Rs.14,750/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization from the ops. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. The complainant is directed to hand over the washing machine in question to the op no.1 against proper receipt within 15 days from today. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                   Member      Member                President,

Dated: 26.04.2023.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK