BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.223/12.

Date of instt.: 06.09.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 13.03.2015.

Mohinder Singh son of Sh. Phoola Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Sanch, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. M/s. Ashoka Trading Company, 2006/4, Katra Lachno Singh, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-6.

Surya Roshini Limited Registered Office Parkash Nagar Sanknol, Bahadhur Gargh, Haryana-12457.

3. M/s. Shiv Electric Store through Karan Singh son of Sh. Giani Ram, resident of Main Bazar, Village and Post Office Rasina, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. R.D.Sharma, Advocate for complainant

                        Sh. Tarun Dhingra, Advocate for the Op No.1.

                        Ops No.2 & 3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased 30 CFL tubes of 15W/20W worth Rs.3,000/- from the Op No.3 vide bill No.25 dt. 04.08.2011 for his residence against the warranty of one year.  It is alleged that the product sold by the Ops are sub-standard and all the tubes have been fused within two/three months from the date of purchase.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops but the Ops have refused to replace the said CFL fuse tubes with new one.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite part No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Ops No.2 and 3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 20.03.2014.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the answering Op deals in electrical goods having great reputation in their customers.  The Op No.1 has never sold CFL to Op No.3 or complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased 30 CFL tubes of 15W/20W worth Rs.3,000/- from the Op No.3 vide bill No.25 dt. 04.08.2011 for his residence against the warranty of one year.  The product sold by the Ops are sub-standard and all the tubes have been fused within two/three months from the date of purchase.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 vehemently contends that the complainant purchased CFL tubes from the Op No.3 and the Op No.1 i.e. Ashoka Trading Company has never sold CFL or any other goods to the complainant or the Op No.3, who is sole proprietor firm having its office at Delhi.  So, in view of contention of ld. Counsel for the Op No.1, we find that the Op No.1 has no role in the present case.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and bill (Ex.C1).  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops No.2 and 3 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops No.2 and 3 are deficient while rendering services to the complainant and adopting unfair trade practice.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops No.2 & 3 to replace the 30 CFL as purchased by the complainant from the Op No.3 and further to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the cost of 30 CFL and awarded compensation.  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.

Dt.13.03.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.