DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.793/2008

Col. S. S. Rana

Son of Capt. S.S. Rana,

Resident of Village Nangli Poona,

PO Alipur, Delhi-110036                                              ….Complainant

Versus

Lodhi Sports,

7, Main Market,

Lodhi Colony,

New Delhi-110003

Through its Director/Manager/Owner                     ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :  03.12.08         Date of Order    : 02.11.18    

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Naina Bakshi, Member

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that   the complainant had purchased the treadmill (model No. Columbus, Show Room LR items Code 02692) on 05.12.07 from the OP for Rs.27,000/-. After 3-4 months, it starting showing some sign of defects which seemed inherent. The treadmill started emitting strange sound as if some not greased and sometime used to emit foul smell as if that some wiring burning etc. The complainant informed the official of the OP, who stated that it is a minor problem which would be rectified shortly on its own. Official of the OP stated that such noises are frequent in new machine and would get Ok on its own. When the problem was not ratified and it was become bad to worst the complainant tried the helpline no. of the OP but no one has responded. It is submitted that the complainant tired of such attitude of the OP, sent a written communications on 26.06.08 and 19.11.08 through registered post but OP failed to respond the same. In the meantime, the treadmill has become a useless set of iron lying in the premises of the complainant since April, 2008. The complainant was not able to enjoy the benefits of the treadmill.  It is submitted that the OP was deliberately trying to get the warranty period of one year of the said machine elapsed by deliberately not paying any heed to the various complaints of the complainant. Knowing fully well the defects in the machine was inherent and cannot be rectified. Hence, pleading deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant  has filed the present for issuing direction to the OP to pay Rs.72,000/- to the complainant with cost of the present proceeding as detailed in the para 9 of the complaint.

OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that it is not denied that on 05.12007 the complainant  purchased a treadmill for Rs.27,000/- which was in perfect and in good condition in which the complainant  himself admitted. It is denied that some sign of defects was inherent. The machine worked for some period. It is also wrong that the machine was giving strange sound and used emit foul smell. It is submitted that the complainant never informed to the OP, that there was any problem in the said machine. It is denied that that communication dated 26.06.08 was served to the OP.  The letter sent by the complainant on 19.11.08 in which the allegations leveled by the complainant are not specific but vague also. It is wrong and denied that the treadmill is useless. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit  in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ravi Jain, Sole Proprietor has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

 We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant.

No one has appeared on behalf of the OP to advance oral arguments despite opportunity afforded in this regard.

Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a treadmill on 05.12.07 from the OP for Rs.27,000/-. The complainant has filed bill dated 05.12.17 which we mark as Annexure-1 for the purposes of identification. The complainant vide letters dated 26.06.08 and 19.11.08 inform the OP regarding defective treadmill. We mark the same as Annexure-2 & 3 for the purposes of identification.

 It is evident from the record that the treadmill started giving problem in the warranty period. The complainant sent two letters dated 26.06.08 and 19.11.08 requesting the OP to rectify the defect but the OP failed to rectify the defect. Non- rectifying the defect during the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

In view of the above discussion we allow the complainant  and directed the OP to pay Rs.27,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.20,000/- in lumpsum towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay the above stated amount of Rs.27,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 02.11.18.