BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL, 5TH FLOOR,
ISBT, KASHMERE GATE: DELHI-110006
No. DF(Central)/2015/ Dated:
Complaint Case No.388 of 2014
Sh. Tulsi Ram
S/o Sh. Ishwari Prasad
R/o V&PO Boh, Ambala Cantt.,
AMBALA, HARYANA Complainant
Versus
M/s Gayatri Traders
Having its office at:
8413, Gali No. 2, Arya Nagar,
Paharganj,
New Delhi – 110 055
Through Its Proprietor/Auth.Repre.
Shri Jitender Kumar Opposite Parties
ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
The complainants purchased a fully automatic double die paper plate machine from the OP vide bill No. 030 dated 8.6.2014 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the OP had assured him at the time of purchase that the said machine is having guarantee of 10 years from the date of purchase and in case any defect arises in machine, then the mechanic of the OP will visit the site of the customer and cure the defect. It was assured by the OP that the machine would be despatched at Hardoi, U.P. on an immediate basis. It is further alleged by the complainant that the OP transported the machine to Lucknow instead of Hardoi without any intimation to the complainant and the transporter who was acting as per the instruction of the OP asked the complainant to pay Rs.8000/-as transportation charges to take the delivery of the machine. Having no option complainant paid Rs.8000/- to the transporter and took the delivery of the machine. It is further alleged by the complainant that although the machine reached at the complainant address but it did not function even for a day. Despite repeated requests, reminder and visits neither the machine has been sent by the OP to repair the machine till date, nor the OP had made any positive response to address the grievance of the complainant. Hence this complaint.
The notice of the complaint was sent to the OP by registered post. The registered letter was not received back un-served. Hence, it was presumed that the notice had been delivered to the OP . Since none had appeared for the OP, it was ordered to be proceeded with exparte.
In his exparte evidence, the complainant has filed its affidavit dated 19.5.2015 wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.
We have heard argument advanced at bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record the copy of Invoice dated 8.6.2014 which states the period of warranty as 10 years. Hene, this machine is under warranty at the time of filing the complaint. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of receipts which shows that the complainant had paid a amount of Rs.3,0301/- and Rs.8000/- towards transportation charges. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of legal notice dated 26.9.2014 sent to the OP alongwith its postal receipt.
Even otherwise there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed on record by the complainant.
In number of case courts have held that where serious allegations are made against a notice and the allegations are not refuted and the allegations and the notice is simply ignored, a presumption may be drawn that the allegation made in the notice are true (see Kalu Ram V/s Sita Ram 1980 RLR (note 44) and Metro Polis Travel v/s Sumit Kalra and others 98 (2002) DLT 573 (BT).
The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn in favours of the complainant that the contents of the notice/complaint are true. From the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true.
From the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the document placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. We hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:-
- To refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,10,030/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of bill i.e. 8.6.2014 till payment.
- To pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
- To take back the machine after making the aforesaid payment.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (DR. VIKRAM DABAS) (RAKESH KAPOOR) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
