Haryana

Jind

CC/16/29

Smt. Priynka - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Hari Om Rattan BhandarOp1 And Anil Kumar Op2 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. P.K. Batra

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 22 of 2016
   Date of Institution: 23.2.2016
   Date of final order: 5.7.2016

Smt. Priyanka w/o Sh. Varun Kumar r/o H.No.230/6, Savitri Nagar, Patiala Chowk, Jind.  

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Hari Om Rattan Bhandar near sunny matching store, Tonga Chowk, Jind through its incharge and responsible person Sh. Anil Kumar.
Anil Kumar, in-charge and responsible person of M/s Hari Om Rattan Bhandar, ner sunny matching store, Tonga Chowk, Jind.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. P.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties  already ex-parte. 
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is daughter of Sh. Naresh Kumar Pasrija and before her marriage she was residing at her parental house situated in old Power House Colony, Jind. It is stated that on 29.10.2015 i.e. a day before the festival “KARWA CHAUTH” she went for shopping in the market and visited the shop of opposite parties to purchase some good quality artificial 
        Smt. Priyanka Vs. M/s Hari Om Rattan Bhandar etc.
                    …2…
jewellery. At that time the complainant was accompanying her mother-in-law and Devar. The opposite party No.2 placed several sets before the complainant and given guarantee of each set and said that all the sets are of superior quality and their colour and shining remained intact even after wearing 20 times. On the assurance of opposite party No.2 she has purchased an artificial necklace set worth Rs.600/- and paid the cost of the necklace. On the day of  “KARWA CHAUTH” festival the complainant along with her husband visited the shop of opposite parties to change the above said necklace set as the same was found of inferior quality and was found already used. The complainant when asked the opposite party No.2 about its earlier use then he admitted his fault saying that as he also used to give the artificial jewellery on rent and it might be given to someone on rent. The complainant then demanded a fresh set of good quality but opposite parties were not having good and fresh quality set. The complainant requested to the opposite parties to give the fresh  artificial jewellery necklace or to pay the cost of necklace i.e. Rs.600/- but the opposite parties refused to refund the amount as well as necklace set. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund the cost of artificial necklace i.e. Rs.600/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  to the complainant. 
2.   The opposite parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 2.5.2016. 
        Smt. Priyanka Vs. M/s Hari Om Rattan Bhandar etc.
                    …3…
3.    In  ex-parte  evidence, the complainant has produced her own affidavit Annexure C-1,  copy of  receipt Annexure C-2, affidavit of Sh. Varun Kumar Annexure C-3, affidavit of sh. Ashok Kumar Annexure C-4 and affidavit of Sh. Shivam Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard  the  counsel for complainant and also perused the record placed on file. The  complainant has purchased the artificial necklace  against a sum of Rs.600/- on 30.10.2015 and  when the complainant want to wear the said necklace then she found that the said necklace is already used one and the complainant made a complaint with the opposite parties for replacement of the same with new one but the opposite parties refused to do so and also use filthy language.   
5.    At the very out set it is  clear from the Annexure C-2 that the complainant has purchased the artificial necklace from the opposite parties and he had given the hand written receipt Annexure C-2(Kacha Bill) and opposite party Anil Kumar responsible person has put his signature on the “Kacha Bill”. It means opposite parties had received the necklace,  but the  opposite parties did not bother to appear and they were proceeded against ex-parte. The complainant in support of his evidence had also filed her affidavit along with three other witnesses affidavit in support of her complaint.  The evidence produced by the complainant goes un-rebutted. In these circumstances, the version of the complainant is believable as the necklace was old one (already used) 
        Smt. Priyanka Vs. M/s Hari Om Rattan Bhandar etc.
                    …4…
6.    Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that  there is unfair trade practice  on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite parties are directed  to pay the cost of necklace i.e. Rs.600/-.(Rs. six hundred only) We assessed the cost Rs. 1100/-(Rs. eleven hundred only) The order be complianced within 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of order, failing which the opposite parties will pay an interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 23.2.2016 till its realization. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 5.7.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smt. Priyanka Vs. M/s Hari Om Rattan Bhandar etc.
                    
Present:  Sh. P.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties  already ex-parte. 

              Arguments heard. To come up on 5.7.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  4.7.2016

Present:  Sh. P.K. Batra Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties  already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  5.7.2016