Haryana

Kaithal

196/18

Reena Etc - Complainant(s)

Versus

Choudhary Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Satish Sharma

11 Dec 2018

ORDER

DCDRF
KAITHAL
 
Complaint Case No. 196/18
( Date of Filing : 24 Jul 2018 )
 
1. Reena Etc
VPO.Narar,Kaithal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Choudhary Electronics
Kaithal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Suman Rana MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 11 Dec 2018
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

 

 Complaint No.196/2018.

 Date of instt.:24.07.2018.

                                                         Date of Decision:11.12.2018.

 

  1. Reena age 31 years, wd/o Shri Ram Mehar, r/o Harijan Patti, VPO Narar, Distt. Kaithal.
  2. Manshi age 9 years (minor) d/o late Shri Ram Mehar,
  3. Aryan age 8 years (minor) s/o late Shri Ram Mehar, minors through their mother as natural guardian.

                                                                ……….Complainants.

                                        Versus

 

  1. Chaudhary Electronics, Shop No.5, Koel Complex Market, near Old Bus Stand, Kaithal.
  2. Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.SF-713 to SF-716 Floor, JMD Megapolis, Sohna Road, Sector-48, Gurgaon-122018.

 

..……..Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:      Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

                   Smt. Suman Rana, Member.

 

Present:    Shri Satish Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                   Opposite Parties ex parte.

                

                   ORDER

 

(SUMAN RANA, MEMBER).

 

                    The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that husband of complainant No.1 namely Ram Mehar purchased one Cell Frost Deep Freezer – CF500 ltr. for Rs.30,700/- on 06.4.2017 from respondents vide Invoice No.CE-17-18#33 with one year full warranty and five warranty of compressor. It is further alleged that in the month of July 2017, the problems of no cooling, too noisy and auto switch off starts in the said freezer, then husband of complainant No.1 informed both the respondents about the said defects. It is further alleged that on the complaint, respondent No.1 sent his agent to the house of complainants and took the said defected freezer at his shop and respondent No.1 got repaired the same from the respondent No.2 and after repair, sent the same to the house of complainants in March 2018. It is further alleged that on 13.3.2018, the husband of complainant No.1 has been died and due to death of her husband, the complainant No.1 is beneficiary and user of said freezer and legal heirs of deceased consumer Ram Mehar. It is further alleged that after the death of her husband, the complainant No.1 again contacted the respondents for problem of said freezer, but the respondents did not hear her. It is further alleged that the said freezer is not working properly since its purchasing till today. It is further alleged that complainant No.1 served legal notice to respondents on 28.5.2018 through her counsel Shri Satish Sharma, Advocate, but no reply has been given by the respondents to the said notice. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and proceeded against ex parte vide order dt. 14.11.2018.

3.     In support of the case, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; document Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, Mark C1 to Mark C6 and closed the evidence on 26.11.2018.

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for the complainants and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the complainants.  

5.     From the pleadings and evidence of the complainants, we found that the husband of the complainant No.1 namely Ram Mehar purchased one Cell Frost Deep Freezer – CF500 ltr. for Rs.30,700/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.CE17-18#33 dt. 06.4.2017 Mark C-1. The husband of the complainant namely Ram Mehar died on 13.3.2018 vide death certificate Mark C-2.

6.     According to the complainants, in the month of July 2017, the problems of no cooling, too noisy and auto switch off starts in the said freezer and husband of complainant No.1 informed both the OPs about the said defects. On the complaint of husband of complainant No.1, the OP No.1 sent his agent to the house of complainants and took the said defected freezer at his shop. The OP No.1 got repaired the said freezer from the OP No.2 and after repair, sent the same to the house of complainants in March 2018. On 13.3.2018, the husband of complainant No.1 has been died and after that, the complainant No.1 again contacted the OPs regarding problem of said freezer, but the OPs did not hear her. The said freezer is not working properly since its purchasing till today. The complainant No.1 served legal notice to OPs on 28.5.2018 through her counsel Shri Satish Sharma, Advocate, but no reply has been given by the OPs to the said notice.

7.     The complainants have supported their version by leading affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, Mark C1 to Mark C6 whereas, on the other hand, no one appeared on behalf of OPs and as such, the OPs opted to be proceeded against ex parte. So, the evidence adduced by the complainants goes unrebutted and unchallenged against OPs. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the freezer in question was defective one and the OPs have failed to resolve the grievance of the complainants. Hence, the OPs are deficient in service.

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint ex parte and direct the OPs to replace the defective freezer of the complainants with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainants vide Invoice No. CE-17-18#33 dt. 06.04.2017 Mark-C1. However, it is hereby made clear that if the freezer as purchased by the complainants, is not available with the OPs, then the OPs shall refund to the complainants Rs.30,700/- ‘the cost of freezer. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,500/- lump-sum on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.11.12.2018.        (Suman Rana).               (Rajbir Singh).

                              Member.                              Presiding Member.

 

Present:     Shri Satish Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                Opposite Parties ex parte.

                       

                 Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed ex parte. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

 

Dated:11.12.2018.       Member.                            Presiding Member.           

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Suman Rana]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.