BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,                                                  FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 179

Date of Institution : 17.12.2014

Date of Decision : 12.02.2015

Dr. Sumit Kumar, aged about 30 years S/o Sh. Adarsh Kumar, R/o H.No. 121, Gali No.1, Guru Nanak Colony, Sadiq Road, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Farid Sales Corporation,Opposite Saddar Police Station, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot, through its Prop./Partner.

...Opposite Party (OP)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. A.K. Mehta, President

Smt. Parampal Kaur, Member

Sh. Purshotam Singla, Member

Present: Sh. R.S. Machaki, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for complainant.

Opposite Party Exparte

JUDGMENT

(A.K. Mehta, President)

Dr. Sumit Pal Complainant has come to this Forum with complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as CP Act) against Farid Sales Corporation OP for selling repaired and defective washing machine Model No.Admiral 7012W Sr. No. 13730465 to the complainant with a direction to OP to replace the same and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and inconvenience and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses on the allegations that complainant purchased above said washing machine make IFB from OP for Rs.26,500/- vide bill no. 457 dated 29.06.2014 and complainant is consumer of the OP; that from the date of purchase, the washing machine in question was giving problem in one way or the other and complainant filed complaint with the OP and then Gurnam Singh Mechanic/Engineer of OP came to the complainant for checking the machine and told the complainant that machine is repaired and defective one and is having some manufacturing defect and thereafter complainant again contacted the OP and asked him to replace the machine and the OP told the complainant that machine would be replaced after the Diwali when new stock will arrive; that after Diwali, complainant approached the OP many times and requested him to replace the machine but the matter was put of by OP on the one or the other pretext and then a month before filing the complaint, OP totally refused to replace the washing machine; that complainant served a legal notice on the OP with the request to replace the machine within 15 days but even after receipt of notice, the OP did nothing in the matter and rather refused to replace the machine and misbehaved with the complainant and his father and used un-parliamentary language which amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of the OP; that the conduct of the OP caused harassment, mental tension and inconvenience to the complainant and for that complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence complaint was filed.

2. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP but the OP refused to accept the notice and it was observed that OP is not interested to contest the complaint and the OP was accordingly proceeded against exparte.

3. In exparte evidence, Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1, copy of bill dated 29.06.2014 and closed his evidence.

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file.

5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant purchased the washing machine in question from OP vide bill Ex C-2 but the same was not working properly and on complaint, OP sent his mechanic/engineer to rectify the washing machine but after inspection of the washing machine, mechanic told the complainant that washing machine is repaired and defective machine and can not be repaired. He contended that complainant told this fact to OP who agreed to replace the washing machine after Diwali when new stock would arrive but did not stick to his promise and rather refused to replace the machine afterward and even misbehaved with the complainant and his father which caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled for the replacement of the washing machine along with compensation and litigation expenses.

6. OP is exparte in this complaint as OP refused to receive the notice. Complainant have proved his affidavit Ex C-1 on the file and reiterated all the allegations of the complaint in his affidavit. Complainant have also proved bill Ex C-2 which shows that complainant purchased IFB washing machine from OP on 29.06.2014 for Rs.26,500/-, complainant vide his affidavit proved on the file have alleged that washing machine is not working properly and even on complaint, OP have not taken steps for repairs of the washing machine or to replace it and rather misbehaved with the complainant which must have caused harassment and mental tension to the complainant. It proves on the file that washing machine is not working properly and the OP even on complaint, had not taken any step to rectify the defect in washing machine. Otherwise complainant have not examined the mechanic Gurnam Singh and as such it can not be concluded that washing machine is a repaired or defective washing machine or it has a manufacturing defect in it. Otherwise the evidence brought on the file proves that the washing machine is not working properly and the same is within warranty period as the washing machine was purchased on 29.06.2014. As such OP is duty bound to rectify the defect in the washing machine as first step or to replace the washing machine if defect is not rectified, rather complainant have proved on the file that OP misbehaved with the complainant when he made complaint to the OP and as such complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment etc. Moreover due notice of the complaint was given to the OP but OP refused to accept the notice which also shows that OP is aware of pendency of the complaint and intentionally did not appear in the complaint in order to contest the complaint which also shows that OP have nothing to say against the claim of the complainant.

6. In the light of above discussion, complaint succeeds and the same is hereby exparte allowed with cost in favour of the complainant and against the OP. The OP is directed to repair the washing machine to make it properly workable within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order or when notice to this effect is served on the OP by the complainant and if OP failed to rectify the defect in the washing machine within one month then the OP is directed to replace the washing machine with fresh washing machine of the same model and price, failing which the OP to refund the price of the washing machine to the complainant. Complainant is also held entitled to Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of harassment, in convenience and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. OP is directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order. Complainant to serve the notice on the OP with a copy of order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 12.02.2015

Member Member President

(Purshotam Singla) (Parampal Kaur) (A.K. Mehta)