DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/14/338 of 10/12/2014

Decided on 18/05/2015

Rohit Bansal son of Sh. Bhan Chand Bansal, R/o 74, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Berkelay Retails Ltd., SCO No.343, Sector 9, Panchkula.

2. Reboke India Co. Signature Towers-B, NH 08, South City-1, Gurgaon.

3. Berkelay, Head Office 24, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

….Opposite parties.

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Rohit Bansal in person.

For Opposite parties no.1 & 2 : Sh. P. S. Sidhu Advocate

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased one Tread Mill T5.2 from Op no.1 vide Invoice no.1257 dt.03/01/2014 for an amount of Rs.39,999/- and Op provided one year warranty against any defect arising in the same. It is averred that on the very first day, the said Tread mill started creating problem and it did not function properly. On 7/1/2014 and 09/01/2014, the complainant lodged an on line complaint with OPs through email but the OPs failed to attend to the complaint of the complainant. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the company telephonically and ultimately on 29/01/2014 he served a legal notice upon OPs. After repeated requests as well as legal notice, technical engineer of the OP visited the house of the complainant on 06/03/2014 and repaired the Tread Mill after changing some parts. It is further averred that again some problem cropped up in the Tread mill and it stopped working permanently on 23/3/2014. Necessary message was given to the OPs and a complaint was got registered with OPs. The OP came on 16/4/2014 and took some damaged parts of the Tread mill along with it. Thereafter, Ops did not bother to repair the said Tread mill or to refund the amount charged i.e. Rs.39,999/-. The complainant also lodged a complaint with OP i.e. Mr. Sohan, Store Manager on telephone no.98884-70381 but OPs failed to rectify the defect in the Tread mill which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental tension at the hands of OPs. Ultimately he approached this forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

2. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.1 & 2 only, who appeared through counsel and filed their joint reply to the complaint.

3. After admitting that the Tread mill in dispute was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1, Ops have pleaded that at the time of quoting the price of the Tread mill, the complainant was specifically told that the said product would not carry any warranty/ guaranty as the same was offered to him at 75% discounted price. Further the complainant would be required to contact the authorized service centre of Reebok for any guarantee/ warranty upon the said product as mentioned in the user manual of the product. Moreover, the Tread mill in question had gone defective due to the use of the same by the complainant without using the voltage stabilizer and as such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OPs. After denying all other allegations going against it, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and he closed the evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of OPs no.1 & 2, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA the sworn affidavit of Sh. Ashwinder Singh Bhangu along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed its evidence.

5. Counsel for OP no.1 filed written arguments on behalf of OP no.1 & 3, whereas OP no.3 was never summoned and therefore, the same shall be read on behalf of OP no.1 only. Counsel for OP no.2 filed an application for withdrawing his power of attorney on behalf of Op no.2 at the time of oral arguments. By that time the case had fully matured and the party would also like the counsel to argue for it. We have gone through the written arguments, heard the counsel for OP no.1 and the complainant in person and gone through the evidence placed on record.

6. Ex.C-5 is the copy of the invoice whereby, the complainant purchased one Tread mill on 3/1/2014. It is very clearly written in condition no.1 of the terms and conditions mentioned in the Invoice as under:

“We offer an easy 7 day exchange policy, if you are not entirely satisfied with your purchase, you may exchange or return most items bought from us.”

Condition no.2 says: “Only the higher or equal price will be exchanged, no cash refund is allowed.” Condition no.3 provides: “Time frame of warranty is 4 months from the date of purchase.” condition no.5 provides: “No return/ exchange or claim for defect shall be entertained on the product which have been bought at a discount or during sale period.”

7. Ex.C-6 is the copy of the on-line complaint lodged by the complainant and page 3 of Ex.C-6 is the copy of the reply to the complaint sent by OP. Ex.C-10 is the copy of the mail sent by OP to the complainant regarding rectification of the problem in the Tread Mill on 6/3/2014 by G. A. D. Electronic vide Invoice no.620. Ex.C-12 is the satisfaction note duly signed by the complainant.

8. The only plea taken by OP as per Ex.OP-4 is that “ the Tread Mill was under no guarantee, no warranty being the same was sold on 75% discount under stock clearance.” The said plea of OP is belied from condition no.3 mentioned on the Invoice i.e. Ex.C-5. As per condition no.3, “Time frame of warranty is four months from the date of purchase.”

9. In the present case, the complainant purchased the Tread mill on 3/1/2014 and from the very first day it did not function properly. On 07/01/2014 & 09/01/2014 the complainant lodged a complaint with OPs. Inspite of various requests made by the complainant, OPs did not pay any attention to the complaint of the complainant. On 06/03/2014, a technical engineer of OP visited the premises of the complainant and checked the Tread mill and confirmed that the supply card was damaged due to rough use/ overload of supply. He replaced the supply card with a new one and the Tread mill became functional. The complainant has averred that the Tread mill again became non-functional on 23/3/2014 but the OPs failed to rectify the defect.

10. As per condition no.3 mentioned on the invoice which is as follows: “Time frame of warranty is 4 months from the date of purchase.” The defect occurred in the Tread mill before the expiry of 4 months and therefore OPs are liable to rectify the same.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.2 to rectify the defect in the Tread Mill to the satisfaction of the complainant. OP no.2 is further obliged to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OP no.2 within a period of one month from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated: 18/05/2015.

Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta

Member Member