Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/224

Sohan Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Creative Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Tulsi Dass

01 Nov 2016

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        224       

Date of Institution :   9.08.2016

Date of Decision :     1.11.2016

 

Sohan Dass s/o Surjit Singh, r/o Dogar Basti, Jeet Avenue, Faridkot.                                                            

.....Complainant

Versus

Creative Enterprises, F-1293, Rico Industrial Area, Phase-III, Sitapura, Jaipur through its Authorised Signatory.

....Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Tulsi Dass, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               OP-Exparte.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OP to pay Rs.75,000/- for cost of treadmill alongwith Rs 20,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 500/- as litigation expenses.

2                            Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Treadmill Pro Body Line Fitness from OP for Rs.75,000/-against bill no.319/15-16 dated 4.08.2015. said machine was purchased by complainant by placing an order by booking from Faridkot and OP sent the said article through “ Shree Khator Road Lines, Road No. 14, Near Badama Sabji Mandi, NH-8, Delhi Jaipur Bypass, VKI Area Jaipur and at the time of delivery, OP assured complainant that said article is of very good quality and also gave warranty for two years. OP also assured complainant of providing services to his satisfaction during the warranty period, but to the utter surprise of complainant, said machine was not working properly. On 5.07.2016, complainant made complaint with OP, who advised him to send photographs of treadmill, complainant did the same on 6.07.2016 and on advice of OP, complainant restarted the same, it did not work, thereafter, OP advised him to send invertors of this treadmill and complainant sent the same, which was returned to complainant on 16.07.2016 and on restarting, it again did not do any work. Thereafter, on 20.07.2016, on complaint by complainant, OP sent his mechanic to the house of complainant, who after inspection told that there is some manufacturing defect in said treadmill. After that, complainant made many requests to OP to replace the said treadmill, but they did not pay any heed to his requests. Complainant approached OP many times to do the needful, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and few day ago, OP flatly refused to replace the said treadmill. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant besides financial loss. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs 75,000/- for cost of treadmill alongwith Rs 20,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                              Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.08.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                        Notice containing copy of complaint was issued to OP through registered post but same was not received back in the Forum and presumed to be served. Statutory period expired. Case was called up many times, but OP did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled by complainant. Therefore, vide order dt 18.10.2016, OP was proceeded against exparte.

5                                           The complainant tendered in Ex-parte evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   As there is no rebuttal from OP side, therefore, ld counsel for complainant advanced exparte arguments before this Forum.

7                              Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased a Treadmill Pro Body Line Fitness from OP for Rs.75,000/-against bill no.319/15-16 dated 4.08.2015. The said machine was purchased by complainant by placing an order by booking from Faridkot and OP sent the said article through “ Shree Khator Road Lines, Road No. 14, Near Badama Sabji Mandi, NH-8, Delhi Jaipur Bypass, VKI Area Jaipur and at the time of delivery, OP assured complainant about good quality of treadmill and also gave warranty for two years. OP also assured complainant of providing services during the warranty period, but to the utter surprise of complainant, said machine was not working properly. On 5.07.2016, complainant made complaint with OP, who advised him to send photographs of treadmill, complainant did the same on 6.07.2016 and on advice of OP, complainant restarted the same, but being defective, it did not work, thereafter, OP advised him to send invertors of this treadmill and complainant sent the same, which was returned to complainant on 16.07.2016 and on restarting, it again did not do any work. Thereafter, on 20.07.2016, on complaint by complainant, OP sent his mechanic to the house of complainant, who after inspection told that there is some manufacturing defect in said treadmill. After that, complainant made many requests to OP to replace the said treadmill, but OP did not pay any hearing to his requests. Complainant approached OP many times to do the needful, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and few day ago, OP flatly refused to replace the said treadmill. All this act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant besides financial loss. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 7.

8                        From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by complainant, it is observed that complainant placed an order with OP for purchasing a treadmill, which turned out to be defective. On advice of OP, complainant sent the photographs and invertor of treadmill to OP and  even OP sent their mechanic to the place of complainant for repairing the said treadmill, but all in vain and said treadmill did not set right. Complainant made many requests to OP to replace the said treadmill, but all in vain. Due to this act of OP, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony besides financial loss. Complainant has proved his pleadings with the help of documents Ex C-1 to 7. Complainant has tried to prove that this Forum has jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint by placing on record the document Ex C-7, which is a copy of Declaration clearly showing the fact that OP made delivery of said treadmill at Faridkot. Through Ex C-6, copy of bill dated 4.08.2015, it becomes clear that complainant made payment of Rs.75,000/-to OP as cost of said treadmill. Ex C-4 reveals that delivery was made by OP at Faridkot through Shree Khator Road Lines. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case. On the contrary, OP did not appear in this Forum to contest the case and to defend the allegations levelled against them.

9                      In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to replace the treadmill purchased by complainant. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.1000/-as litigation expenses incurred by complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 01.11.2016

Member                                President                                                 (P Singla)                             (Ajit Aggarwal)