Haryana

Sonipat

CC/171/2015

NARENDER S/O SHRIU BICHHATER PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMEZON DOT COM - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.171 of 2015

                                Instituted on:26.05.2015                                             Date of order:13.07.2015

 

Narender son of Bichatar Singh, resident of VPO Rajpur tehsil Ganaur, distt. Sonepat.

..Complainant

 

                            Versus

 

Amazon.In, Parmesh Complex Building no.H, OPP Vatika Restaurant, Mumbai-Nasik Highway no.3, Bhiwadibye-pass road.

..Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Respondent ex-parte.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that on 25.5.2014 through internet got purchased one printer make Richo Officio SO 100 SU and it worked properly only for two months and thereafter it started creating problems.   The complainant made so many complaints to the respondent and Richo company.  The engineer of the company visited on 9.10.2014 and 23.12.2014 for removal of the fault.  On 23.12.2014, the engineer got the signature of the complainant and whatever was written by him, the same was not disclosed to the complainant.  Due to the fault of the printer, the complainant has suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        Notice to the respondent was issued through registered post.  But when none appeared on behalf of the respondent, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.06.2015.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present complaint, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the printer from the respondent on 25.5.2014 and he has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 26.5.2015 i.e. after expiry of warranty period.  The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the printer.  However, to prove the printer’s defects, he has placed on record four job sheets.

          In the present case, opportunity was given to the respondent to appear before this Forum and to defend the present complaint, but the above said opportunity has gone waste since the respondent has chosen to proceed ex-parte.  Due to this act and conduct of the respondent, the pleadings of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.  The complainant to prove the defects has also placed on record the copy of job sheet Annexure 2 to 5 which speaks in favour of the complainant.  Thus,  we have no other option except to accept the present complaint.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.7000/- (Rs.seven thousands) to the complainant (i.e. Rs.5799/- cost of the printer and compensation the complainant to the tune of Rs.1200/- for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses). 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed ex-parte.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of cost and the same be also sent to the respondent for information and its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:13.07.2015