Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/618

Jagmohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Action India Home Products - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.sukhija Adv.

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 618 of 14.10.2015

Date of Decision            :   06.06.2016

Jagmohan Singh s/o Late S.Jagat Singh r/o H.No.334, Block-25, G.T.Road, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Action India Home Products, H.O.2162/29, Guru Arjun Nagar Main Patel Nagar Road, Opposite Metro Pillar No.230, New Delhi-110008, through its Partner/Prop/Authorized signatory Sh.Parminder Singh.

2.Sh.Parminder Singh, Partner/Prop.Authorized signatory of M/s Action India Home Products, H.O.2162/29, Guru Arjun Nagar Main Patel Nagar Road, Opposite Metro Pillar No.230, New Delhi-110008.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Harpreet Singh Sukhija, Advocate        

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant, the Chief Editor of Taja Masale, Weekly Newspaper was in need of Spy products for his work and that is why he purchased hidden cameras in the shape of key chain and watch from OPs in November, 2014 for consideration of Rs.11,000/-. These products were sent to the complainant through speed post and the same were received by him in December, 2014. After receiving the said products, the complainant checked the same and found those to be defective and not in working order. Thereafter, complainant informed OPs about the same. OPs directed the complainant to send back the said products and accordingly those were sent back to the OPs. After receiving back the defective products, OPs sent the said order of complainant through courier in February 2015, but again on checking, those were found defective and not in working order. Complainant contacted OP2 on his mobile No.09811251277. Again Ops directed the complainant to send back the said products and accordingly, the defective products were returned back through courier. However, OPs refused to receive back the courier and as such, same was received back by the complainant on 15.5.2015. Then again OP2 was contacted, but he kept on postponing the matter. When the complainant contacted OP2 on his mobile phone, then he refused to replace the defective products. By pleading adoption of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing the OPs to replace the products in good working condition or refund the amount of Rs.11,000/-. Litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- more sought.

2.                Ops in this case were proceeded against ex-parte after drawing presumption of due service due to non receipt of AD or registered covers.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW5 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments of counsel for complainant alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with contents of documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW5 establishes that the complainant received the packet containing watch and key chain hidden cameras, but those were found defective on checking and that is why they were returned back twice. But when for the 3^rd time, they were sent back, then OPs refused to receive the said packet and that is why the same returned back to the complainant and was received by him on 15.5.2015. Ex.CW5 discloses as if the packet containing watch and key chain hidden cameras sent on 10.05.2015 and was returned back. So, this evidence available on record establishes as if the defective hidden cameras were sent by the OPs to the complainant. The defects were not removed, despite sending of the abovesaid products twice and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Sending of defective products is also an act of unfair trade practice and as such, complaint deserves to be allowed in terms that either OPs should repair the hidden cameras in question within the stipulated period or in case, those cameras found not repairable, then Ops should replace the same with new one. Mental harassment and agony actually has been suffered by the complainant and as such, he is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses also.

6.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that Ops will repair the hidden cameras in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order by visiting the site or on sending of the same by complainant to OPs. In case, these cameras found by the OPs to be not repairable, then Ops are directed to replace the same with new one. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                            

                      (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.