Haryana

StateCommission

A/175/2016

HARYANA CYCLE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARMESH - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.CHUGH

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

 

                                                First Appeal No.           175 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       26.02.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         21.03.2016

 

 

Haryana Cycle Company, Gokul Gate, Rewari, Tehsil, and District Rewari through its Proprietor.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

Dharmesh Kumar son of Dharampal resident of Village Asra Ka Majra, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                       

 

Present:              Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          The instant appeal has been filed by Haryana Cycle Company-opposite party against the order dated January 14^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Dharmesh Kumar-complainant was allowed.  The appellant was directed either to replace the defective chairs with new one or to refund its price of Rs.2400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its payment within a period of one month and Rs.5500/- as compensation to the complainant.

2.      Complainant purchased eight chairs from the appellant for Rs.2400/-. Seven chairs were found to be defective.  The complainant requested the appellant to replace the defective chairs but they refused.

3.      Indisputably, complainant purchased eight chairs from the appellant.  The appellant chose to remain ex parte before the District Forum and even in the grounds of appeal, no stand has been taken by the appellant to show that the chairs were not defective. As such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.        

4.      The appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.4200/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

  

Announced 21.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK