Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/104/2015

Randhir Singh S/o Gurdayal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mittu Trading Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Dharamvir Singh

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No… 104  of 2015.

                                                                                           Date of institution: 25.03.2015.

                                                                                           Date of decision: 11.02.2016.

Randhir Singh, aged about 35 years son of late Sh. Gurdayal Singh resident of Usha Colony, Near Rakshak Vihar Naka, Ambala Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                                                        Versus

 

1. Mittu Trading Corporation, Court Road, Opp. Hindu Girls College, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Prop.
2. Arise India Ltd. Corporate Office 309, 3^rd floor, Narain Manzil, 23,Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 through its Managing Director/CEO.       

 

                                                                                                                                                                           …Respondents.  

                       

CORAM:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                Sh. Gaganpal Singh, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 ex-parte.               

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Randhir Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased a geyser make Classy 15 litres capacity from the respondent No.1 manufactured by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred as OPs) for an amount of Rs. 6800/- vide bill No. 216 dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure C-1). At the time of selling the said geyser the OPs provided two years guarantee and five years warranty on the inner tank but the said geyser worked properly only for 4 months and became defective as the said geyser did not warm the water despite consuming electricity, even the indicator of the said geyser was not working properly. The complainant immediately approached the OP No.1 and told about the abovesaid defects and made the complaints on toll free number to the OP No.2 on 04.03.2015 but despite lodging the complaints with the OPs, the geyser of the complainant was neither replaced nor removed the defects. Hence this complaint. Affidavit to this effect filed Annexure CW/A and documents photo copy of bill bearing No. 216 dated 22.10.2014 as Annexure C-1 and photo copy of warranty card as Annexure C-2.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement  but OP No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2015.  The OP No.1 filed its written statement stating that product/geyser in question was purchased by complainant at his own will and choice after understanding the terms and conditions as related, mentioned by the OP No.1. It has been further mentioned that matter of warranty is subject to the warranty card issued by the manufacturer.  As and when the complainant approached/complaint about the said geyser the OP No.1 immediately provided the complainant with toll free number and service provider agency. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied either for want of knowledge or matter of record. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost against the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 i.e. manufacturer Arise India Ltd. remains absent despite service, so, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2015.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     From the perusal of contents of complaint, it is evident that complainant purchased geyser make Classy 15 litres of capacity from the OP No.1 vide bill No. 216 dated 22.10.2014 for a sum of Rs. 6800/- (Annexure C-1) and further the geyser in question was having warranty of two (2) years as a whole whereas warranty of five(5) years on inner tank. These facts were not denied by the OP No.1 in his written statement. The version of the complainant is duly supported by his affidavit as well as warranty card Annexure C-2 whereas the OP No.1 has neither bothered  to file any evidence to rebut the version of the complainant except his affidavit Annexure RW/A. We have gone through the affidavit of Sh.Parmod Mittu proprietor of Mittu Trading Company i.e. OP No.1 minutely and carefully but not a single word has been mentioned by the OP No.1 that geyser in question was not having any manufacturing defect or was not under warranty period. Op No.1 simply mentioned in his affidavit that complainant purchased the geyser in question as per his choice and Op No.1 is not responsible or hold any liability against any manufacturing defect, if arising any. Even the Op No.1 has not denied the fact that complainant never lodged any complaint with him. Moreover, the complainant has fully proved his case and the version of the complainant goes unrebutted evidence. From the perusal of the contents of the complaint, written statement and documents, it is proved that OPs could not set right the geyser. Hence we are of the confirmed view that OPs No.1 & 2 have failed to prove that the geyser was not defective and could not provide proper services to the complainant and thus OPs are guilty of selling defective geyser and there is deficiency in services to the complainant. Hence, in these circumstances we have no option except to allow the present complaint.

7.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 to replace the geyser in question within a period of 30 days and further to pay Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. It is made clear that OP No.1 shall be entitled to get the geyser replaced as well as recover the litigation expenses from OP  No.2 The complaint is decided accordingly in the above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:11.02.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.