BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:288 of 2014
Date of Institution: 03.10.2014
Date of Decision:07.03.2017
Pardeep Kumar son of Sh. Daya Kishan, residence of village & post office Dhanana-II, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana).
….Complainant.
Versus
- Dev Electronics, Naya Bazar Road Bhiwani through its Prop.
- Symphony Limited, Saumya Bakeri Circle, Navrangpura, Ahamedabad (Gujrat) through its Managing Director.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Walia, Advocate for complainant.
None for OP no. 1 (defence struck of).
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a Cooler make Symphony Storm 70 (i), model/chassis no. 1416414103847 for a sum of Rs. 15,500/- from the OP no. 1 on dated 07.06.2014 vide bill no. 9773 with one year warranty/guarantee. It is alleged that after a few time said cooler was not worked properly. It is alleged that the complainant contacted the OP no. 1 many times and has also made the complaint vide complaint nos. KR-VK-8F14004 dated 08.06.2014, KR-VK-14F14002 dated 16.06.2014 and KR-VK-21F14008 dated 21.06.2014 as per telephone nos. given by the OP no. 2. It is alleged that the OP no. 1 misbehaved with the complainant and refused to replace the cooler or to get remove the manufacturing defect of the cooler. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. The defence of OP no. 1 struck off vide order dated 13.07.2016. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.03.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the cooler from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 07.06.2014 Annexure C-2 with warranty of 12 months. The cooler is not working properly and the complainant made complaint to OP no. 1. The OP no. 2 is the manufacturer of the cooler. He submitted that the complainant also made a complaint to OP no. 2 on 08.06.2014, 16.06.2014 and 21.06.2014 but the Ops failed to repair or replaced the cooler of the complainant.
6. We have perused the record carefully. The complainant in support of his case has produced the bill Annexure C-2 and copy of legal notice Annexure C-3. No report of any expert has been placed on the record regarding the defect in the cooler. The complainant has not specifically mentioned the defect in the cooler. Under Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is bound to procure the analysis or test report from the expert, as envisaged in the said section, to prove the manufacturing defects in the cooler. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to remove the defects in the cooler by replacing the defective parts, if any, free of charge. The complainant is directed to approach the Ops or their service centre for the removal of the defects within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and the Ops are directed to remove the defects immediately. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 07.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
