Haryana

Kaithal

CC/266/2023

Amrinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dilkush Jutti Palace 12 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Harpal Singh Duhan

08 Jan 2024

ORDER

                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 266 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:   18.10.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:      08.01.2024.

 

Amrinder Singh s/o Shri Bhagwant Singh, r/o VPO Teontha, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Dilkush Jutti Palace, 12, Ground Floor, A.C. Market, Adalat Bazaar, Patiala, through its Prop. Mahinder Jeet Singh @ Vicky.

...Opposite Party.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Harpal Singh Duhan, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Opposite Party ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that on 12.08.2023, he had purchased two pair of Punjabi Jutti (for short “articles”) in cash at the rate of Rs.3250/- and Rs.2450/- respectively, total for Rs.5700/-, from the OP for himself, vide bill No.5285 dated 12.08.2023. That at the time of selling the said articles, it has been orally assured by the OP that the material used in the said articles are of leather material and the work done on its surface are original one with guarantee of six months for all kind of defect in the articles. He used the said articles, but after sometime, there are defects occurs in the said articles i.e. surface of articles have been uprooted from the side and then in this regard, he made complaint to OP after showing the condition of the articles, who assured that he will repair the articles soon, but all in vain. Thereafter, he visited the OP 6/7 times and made request either to replace the said articles or to refund the value of Rs.5700/-, but OP flatly refused to do so. The above act of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on its part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OP, before this Commission.

3.             Upon receipt of complaint, its notice was ordered to be issued to the OP through registered post, which was duly received upon it as is evident from Track Consignment Report, but despite that, neither the OP appeared before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 04.12.2023 nor filed written statement, as such, OP was proceeded against ex-parte, by this Commission, on that date.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C9.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 12.08.2023, the complainant had purchased two pair of Punjabi Jutti in cash at the rate of Rs.3250/- and Rs.2450/- respectively, total for Rs.5700/-, from the OP for himself, vide bill No.5285 dated 12.08.2023. He further argued that at the time of selling the said articles, it has been orally assured by the OP that the material used in the said articles are of leather material and the work done on its surface are original one with guarantee of six months for all kind of defect in the articles. He further argued that the complainant used the said articles, but after sometime, there are defects occurs in the said articles i.e. surface of articles have been uprooted from the side and then in this regard, the complainant made complaint to OP, who assured that he will repair the articles soon, but all in vain. He further argued that thereafter, the complainant visited the OP 6/7 times and made request either to replace the said articles or to refund the value of Rs.5700/-, but OP flatly refused to do so. He further argued that the above act of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on its part.

7.                From bill Annexure C-7, it is evident that on 12.08.2023, the complainant had purchased two pair of Punjabi Jutti (articles) from the OP, for Rs.3250/- and Rs.2450/-, total Rs.5700.

8.                The grievance of complainant is that he used the said articles, but after sometime, there defects occurs in the said articles i.e. surface of articles have been uprooted, from the side, and in this regard, he visited the OP 6 to 7 times and requested to repair the said articles or either to replace the same with new one or to refund the total cost price of Rs.5700/- to him, but OP flatly refused to do so.

9.                To support his above contentions, complainant produced bill of articles in question as Annexure C-7. He further produced photographs of new articles, purchased by him from the OP, as Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2 respectively. Complainant also produced photographs of defective articles as Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4, and from perusal of these photographs, we found that surface of the articles have been uprooted from the side, due to fallen off the pasting from the side. The complainant further produced mobile screenshot of the calls, made by him, to the OP on 15.09.2023 and 30.09.2023 respectively as Annexure C-8 regarding defect in the said articles. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant purchased the articles in question on 12.08.2023, and from document Annexure C-8 i.e. call details, we found that the complainant made first call to the OP regarding occurring defect in the articles in question on 15.09.2023 and then on 30.09.2023, meaning thereby, there occurs defects in the articles in question, within one month, from the date of its purchase, by the complainant, from the OP.

10.              Contrary to it, OP failed to appear, before this Commission, to rebut the above-mentioned contentions of the complainant, despite receipt of notice, issued by this Commission and opted to be proceeded against ex-parte. So, in this way, evidence adduced by the complainant, goes unrebutted and unchallenged, against the OP and thus, we have no option, but to accept the version of the complainant.

11.              Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the articles, purchased by the complainant, from the OP, have become defective, within very short of time i.e. one month from its purchase, and in this regard, complainant approached the OP time and again, but OP neither repaired nor replaced nor refund its cost price to the complainant. The above act and conduct of OP, by selling cheap quality of articles, to the complainant, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on its part, which certainly caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the complainant and forced him to indulge in the present litigations unnecessarily. So, in this way, the OP is liable to refund the cost price of the articles in question amounting to Rs.5700/-, to the complainant.

12.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the total amount of Rs.5700/-, to the complainant, subject to return of articles in question, by the complainant, to the OP, within a period of 45 days, from the date of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry the interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

13.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:08.01.2024.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha)              (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Lal, Stenographer.