| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.134 of 31-05-2019 Decided on 31-10-2019 Dr.Munish Gupta aged about 45 years S/o Ramesh Gupta R/o C/o Raman Hospital, 90 Feet Road Near Bibiwala Road, Bathinda ........Complainant Versus Blackberry, Shop No.2032, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Prop/Partner/Owner. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Tarun Kumar, Advocate. Opposite party: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Dr.Munish Gupta (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party Blackberry (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the month of February 2019, he purchased one black colour coat pant of Balackberry company for Rs.13,000/- in cash from opposite party. At that time opposite party assured that coat pant will never got resisted or make any prickle/hooks. It is alleged that the complainant wore the coat pant. It became resisted or make prickles/hooks. He approached opposite party and complained about the coat pant. Opposite party took the coat pant alongwith original bill from him and assured that the company will change it. Opposite party had also given one visiting card in which it had written that the coat pant being detective received and also stamped on that card of its company. It is further alleged that after 15 days, the complainant approached opposite party and requested it to change the coat pant with new one, but it refused to change the coat pant and it did not return the original bill and it also kept the coat pant with it. Complainant also requested opposite party either to change the defective coat pant or refund amount of the coat pant i.e. Rs.13,000/-, but all in vain. On 8.4.2019, opposite patty totally refused to accede the request of the complainant. The complainant also got issued the legal notice on 9.5.2019 through his counsel, but to no response. On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on part of opposite party. He has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss; Rs.13,000/- as price of coat pant and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Complainant was asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of visiting card-cum-receipt, (Ex.C1); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C2); postal receipt, (Ex.C3) and his affidavit dated 31.5.2019, (Ex.C4). We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. The complainant in his affidavit, (Ex.C4) has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. Ex.C1, is visiting card of opposite party. It acknowledges the receipt of the defective suit from the complainant. The complainant has alleged that opposite party has failed to exchange the defective suit or refund of its price. The evidence of the complainant is unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. As such, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party stand proved. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost against opposite party. Opposite party is directed to replace the coat pant with defect free coat pant or refund its price i.e. Rs.13,000/- to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 31-10-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
