Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/67/2021

RinkuS/o Lilu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Giriraj Sewing machine - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Kumar Malik

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    67 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution: 02.03.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 16.06.2022

 

Rinku s/o Shri Lillu Ram, r/o village Mathana, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Giriraj Sewing Machine, Plot No.164, HSIIDC, Rai Sonepat, Haryana, through its authorized person.
2. Giriraj Sewing Machine, H-208, Sector-63 RD, H Block Sector-63, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201307, through its authorized person.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri M.K. Malik, Legal Aid Counsel for the complainant.

                   Opposite Parties ex-parte vide order dated 18.05.2022.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that on 07.03.2020, the complainant purchased a Jack JK 8569 ADI-23BBLX256 sewing machine from the OP for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. From the very first day, the said machine was having a problem and was not in working condition. The complainant requested to the OPs several times telephonically either to replace the said machine with new one or to make the refund of his money, but they kept postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. There is manufacturing defect in the said sewing machine and due to non-functioning the machine, he was not earning anything and faced problem in his life. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of complaint, notice was ordered to be issued against the OPs, but they failed to appear before the Commission and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated  18.05.2022, by this Commission.

4.                In order to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the case file as well carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 07.03.2020, the complainant purchased a Jack JK 8569 ADI-23BBLX256 sewing machine from the OP for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. From the very first day, the said machine was having a problem and was not in working condition. He further argued that the complainant requested to the OPs several times telephonically either to replace the said machine with new one or to make the refund of his money, but they kept postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. There is manufacturing defect in the said sewing machine and due to non-functioning the machine, the complainant was not earning anything and faced problem in his life. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise.

7.                There is no dispute that on 07.03.2020, the complainant purchased a Jack JK-8569 ADI-23BBLX256 Jack Sewing Machine from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide Tax Invoice Ex.C-3.

8.                The grievance of the complainant is that the machine in question was having manufacturing defect, due to which, it was not in working condition from the very first day and in this regard, he telephonically requested to the OPs several times, either to replace the said machine with new one or to make the refund of his money, but they failed to redress his grievance, which is an act of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise on the part of the OPs.

9.                To support his above contentions, the complainant produced on the case file his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 whereas, none of the OPs have appeared before this Commission, to rebut the above-said version of the complainant and opted to be proceeded against ex-parte. So, evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged, against the OPs and thus, we have no option, but to accept the version of the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. The complainant also produced a Memory Card on the case file and after inserting the same into the mobile phone and hearing a call recording in it, we found that one person named Rinku (name of complainant) was talking to some regarding defect in the sewing machine and requesting to make it set right, upon which, the other person/caller assuring him to send his technician in this regard. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that we are of the considered view that the machine purchased by the complainant became defective and after repeated requests made by the complainant to the OPs, they failed either to replace the same or to refund its cost price, which is an act of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise on the part of the OPs.

10.              In the complaint in hand, complainant alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the machine in question, so cost price of machine be refunded to him from the OPs, but it is pertinent to mention here that complainant failed to produce any expert/engineer report in this regard, vide which it can be gathered that there was some manufacturing defect in the machine in question. Moreover, in the complaint, complainant had mentioned that the machine was not working from the very beginning, but he had not mentioned the date/time when he made the complaint in this regard to the OPs, so in this regard, the contention of the complainant that the machine in question was having manufacturing defect, due to which, it became defective from the very beginning, is not believed, hence rejected and in this way, complainant is not entitled the refund of cost price of the machine in question and only liable for its replacement along with compensation amount.  

11.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally to replace the machine in question, subject matter of Tax Invoice Ex.C-3, to the complainant, subject to return of old machine in question by the complainant to the OPs. In case, the OPs are not in position to replace the machine in question of the same model/design, then they will refund the cost price of the machine amounting Rs.50,000/- vide Tax Invoice Ex.C-3, to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, due to an act of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, on the part of the OPs. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry the interest @6% simple per annum from the date of this order, till its actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Dated:16.06.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.