DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.94 of 05-04-2017

Decided on 26-10-2017

Rajiv Ranjan Kumar R/o 20264-F, First Floor, Street No.2A, Jhujar Singh Nagar, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

Avya Health and Fitness, B 42/15, Basement, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi-110095, through its Authorized Person.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.S.P.S Bharti, Advocate.

For opposite party: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Rajiv Ranjan Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party Avya Health and Fitness (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party by various means has been advertising regarding durability and quality of its products. To meet out his requirements, the complainant placed order No.17507763391 for supply of Fit24 Fitness Motorized Treadmill. He was told the price of the product as Rs.18,622.22/- plus CST Rs.2327.28/- i.e. total value Rs.20,950/-. He placed the order for Fit24 Fitness Motorized Treadmill. Opposite party issued the bill dated 7.1.2017 for Rs.20,950/-.

3. It is alleged that when the product reached to the complainant, he was shocked to know that it is not Fit24 Fitness Motorized Treadmill, rather it is Prob Body Line. Opposite party has supplied wrong product to the complainant against the placed order. The product is of second quality and it is also not working as it is defective piece. Opposite party committed fraud and cheating with the complainant.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. He has claimed refund of Rs.20,950/- (value of the product); Rs.5000/- and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. However, written version of opposite party was received by post, which was placed on record.

5. In the written version, opposite party has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed with malafide motive and intention in order to harass it. The complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands. No cause-of-action has arisen to the complainant for filing the complaint.

6. On merits, issuance of advertisement by opposite party is not denied. Receipt of order from the complainant as revealed by him is also not denied, but it is asserted that the product was supplied to him as per order. It is denied that the product was of second quality and it was not working. It is further asserted that the product is of first class quality. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

8. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan Kumar dated 3.8.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of invoice, (Ex.C2); postal receipt, (Ex.C3); photocopy of import slip, (Ex.C4); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C5); photocopy of reply to notice, (Ex.C6) and closed the evidence.

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

10. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. The averment of the complainant is that he placed order for Fit24 Fitness Motorized Treadmill and opposite party supplied another product. Of-course, bill, (Ex.C5) reveals 'Fit24 Fitness Motorized Treadmill'. The complainant has placed on record copy of legal notice dated 16.2.2017, (Ex.C2). In this legal notice, it was alleged by him that instead of Fit24 Fitness Motorized Treadmill, he has received Prob Body Line and opposite party has supplied wrong product to him against placed order. Reply to legal notice received from opposite party is Ex.C6. In this reply, opposite party has rather admitted that it might be mistake by its packing staff to dispatch the product in different name. It was further intimated to the complainant that if, he has any problem, he can return the product and opposite party will refund money to his account. In this way, opposite party has impliedly admitted that it has supplied wrong product, but in the written version received by post, opposite party has totally denied the averments of the complainant.Opposite party has also admitted the reply dated 3.3.2017 and stated that notice was properly replied. Opposite party has not come forward to contest the claim of the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.20,950/- to the complainant and collect the product at its own level. The complainant will be liable to return the product received from opposite party.

14. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. In case of non-compliance of order within the stipulated period, thereafter the interest @ 12% per annum will yield on the amount payable to the complainant till realization.

16. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

17. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:- (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    26-10-2017 President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member