Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/213/2016

Kiran Singh W/o Chater Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iqbal Radio and Sewing Machine - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant Inperson

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 213 of 2016

                                                                                    Date of institution: 27.06.2016                                                                            

                                                                                    Date of decision: 19.10.2016

 

 

Kiran Singh wife of Shri Chattar Pal Singh, resident of House No.65 Ram Nagar, Near Government School Jagadhri, workshop Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Iqbal Radio and Sewing Machine, Railway Road, Yamuna Nagar, Contact No.01732-222053.
2. Singer India Limited, A26/4 Mohan Co operative Industrial, Estate New Delhi-110044.                                                                                                                                                                    …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:          Complainant in person.

                        Shri Parveen Rana, Advocate for OP No.1

                        OP No.2 already ex parte vide order dated 06.09.2016.

 

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that OPs be directed to replace the Sewing Machine or refund Rs.2900/- on account of cost of Sewing Machine.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant Smt. Kiran Singh, purchased a Sewing Machine on 07.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.2900/-, manufactured by OP No.2, Singer DLX Model, Tolex India Ltd. However, when the complainant asked for issuance of purchase Bill to the OP No.1 then he flatly refused to issue the same. At the time of purchasing the Sewing Machine in question, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that if she faces any problem in future then the OP No.1 shall repair the same free of cost. After purchasing the Sewing Machine,  within a period of three days, handle of the machine in question became defective and Sewing Machine was also not stitching properly due to that complainant approached along with Sewing Machine to the OP No.1 and requested to replace the same or refund the amount but the OP No.1 refused to do so. Even the OP No.1 did not return the Sewing Machine to the complainant and after retaining the Sewing Machine in question with him, threatened to leave the shop, otherwise, she will face consequences. Hence, the act of the OP No.1 constitute deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     In support of her case, complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure CW/A and affidavit of one Sh. Chattar Pal Singh son of Sh. Ram Sunder Singh as Annexure CW/B and photocopy of warranty card issued on 07.06.2016 as Annexure C1 and closed her evidence.

4.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed his written statement taking some preliminary objection such as the present complaint is neither maintainable nor tenable in the eyes of law; the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum and she has manipulated the true and correct facts. The sewing machine is in the possession of the complainant and she had never approached at any point of time to the shop of OP No.1. Further, it has been mentioned that if there was any defect in Sewing Machine then there is service center of OP No.2 manufacturing Company from which the complaint can get the same repaired as per terms of warranty given by the OP No.1. This Fourm has no territorial jurisdiction because as per terms of warranty given by the manufacturer company the only courts at Delhi have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints on merit it has been admitted that on 07.06.2016 complainant had purchased new sewing machine make Singer DLX Model for Rs.2900/- and prior to this no such machine was purchased by her as alleged in the complaint. The complainant was handed over the bill and warranty card of the sewing Machine for getting the machine repaired from authorized service center of the OP No.2 Company. However, It has been specifically denied that complainant on 11.06.2016 brought the machine to the shop of the OP No.1 or that the OP No.1 kept the machine as alleged. Further, it has been admitted that in case of any fault, the liability to get the repair or replace the machine was of the service center/manufacturing company i.e. OP No.2 only. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint being false and frivolous qua OP No.1.

5.                     In support of his version OP No.1 therefore, tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure RW/A and photocopy of Bill bearing No.74 dated 07.06.2016 as Annexure R1 and closed his evidence.

6.                     Notice was sent to the OP No.2 manufacturer through Registered Letter bearing No.RH211708802IN dated 29.07.2016 but none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 hence OP No.2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 06.09.2016.

7.                     We have heard the complainant as well as counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant Smt. Kiran Singh wife of Chattar Pal Singh purchased the Sewing Machine from OP No.1 vide bill No.74 dated 07.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.2900/- which is duly evident from the photocopy  of Bill as Annexure R1 and further from the admission of the OP No.1 himself in his written statement.

9.                     The only version of the complainant is that within a period of 3 days handle of Sewing Machine in question became defective and Sewing Machine was also not stitching properly. On this, when the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 on 11.06.2016 along with Sewing Machine and asked the OP No.1 to replace the same or refund the cost of machine i.e. Rs.2900/- but OP No.1 flatly refused to do the same. OP No.1 has also retained the Sewing Machine with him. “Whereas on the other hand, the OP No.1 has flatly refused  that Sewing Machine is in his possession, as neither the complainant along with machine came to the shop of the OP No.1 nor the said machine was retained by the OP No.1. Even, the OP No.1 has denied in Para No.3 that complainant ever visited to the shop of OP No.1 with any complaint. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that if there was any defect in the Sewing Machine than the service center of the manufacturer company i.e. OP No.2, was responsible for the same to replace or repair the Sewing Machine. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complainant as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 as the complainant has filed the present complaint within period of 20 days from the purchasing on Sewing Machine on 07.06.2016. From the contents of the complaint, it is also clear that handle of the Sewing Machine became defective within a period of 3 days and Sewing Machine was also not stitching properly. The complainant has specifically leveled the allegation in her complaint that OP No.1 had not issued the purchase bill of Sewing Machine to the complainant and this version of the complainant seems genuine as she has filed only photocopy of Warranty Card as Annexure C1 at the time of filing the complaint. If the OP No.1 had ever issued the purchase bill to the complainant then the complainant might have place the copy of the same on the file. The complainant has not placed on file any documentary evidence to prove that the Sewing Machine is in possession of the OP No.1 even then from perusal of the written statement filed by the OP No.1, it is clearly evident that OP No.1 has not leveled any such other allegations against the complainant due to which revenge complainant has filed the present complaint against him. Generally a person avoids to remain away from Courts and Hospitals till the circumstances, compelled to him to knock the door of the courts. In the present case also as the complainant has filed the present complaint within a period of 20 days and complaint in respect of defects in the Sewing Machine within a period of 3 days of its purchase, hence, we have no option except to partly allow the present complaint of the complainant.  

11.                   Resultantly, in view of above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.1 to refund the cost of Rs.2900/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days otherwise OP No.1 will also liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint. It is made clear that as per statement of complainant, the sewing machine is already with the OP No.1. However, OP No.1 is at liberty to get the replacement or refund from the manufacturing company OP No.2. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to the parties, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to take action as per law. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 19.10.2016.         

                                                                  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                  DCDRF, Yamuna Nagar.

 

 

                                                                  (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                   MEMBER