Haryana

Panchkula

CC/324/2019

ASHWANI KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KAITHAL TRADERS. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT KUMAR GOEL

24 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	324 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	04.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	24.05.2022

 

 

Ashwani Kumar, S/o Jagdish Chander, aged about 49 years R/o #B-9, HMT Colony, Pinjore, District Panchkula(Hr.)-134102.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s Kaithal Traders, Showroom no.2, Near Railway Crossing,     Pinjore, District Panchkula(Through its Proprietor)

2.     The Proprietor of M/s Kaithal Traders, Showroom no.2, Near      Railway Crossing Pinjore, District Panchkula-134102.

                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Amit Kumar Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

OPs No.1 & 2 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.10.2019.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased 03 no’s of mattresses from the OPs on 22.01.2019 vide bill no.35 amounting to Rs.6,726/-.  The complainant was shocked to see that within a short span of 03 days all (03 no’s) of mattresses purchased by him had sunken. Thereafter, the complainant immediately contacted the OP No.1 and OP no.2 for  exchange or for  getting  the purchased mattresses repaired immediately as he was not having any other mattresses at home but the request of the complainant was let down by the OPs and denied to exchange or get repaired the mattresses. The complainant has served a legal notice upon OPs on 13.02.2019 but the OPs No.1 & 2 did not reply or clarify their stand.  Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs through registered post (vide registered post RH4013984571IN and RH401398465IN on 05.09.2019 respectively, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 14.10.2019.

3.             To prove the case, the ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has submitted the photographs of mattresses, which are taken on record as Mark ‘A’ to ‘C’ for the adjudication of the case in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint contending that the three pairs of mattresses, which were purchased from OPs on 22.01.2019 vide invoice(Annexure C-2) amounting to Rs.6,726/-, became defective as the same got compressed after few days from their purchase. It is contended that the OPs were duly appeared, prior to purchase of the said mattresses about the fact that the complainant was suffering from persistent back pain. It is contended that the complainant was assured by the OPs about the good quality as well as good durability of mattresses. It is contended that the OPs sold the said mattresses on the basis of false assurance as mattresses became defective within three days from the purchase. It is contended that the legal notice dated 13.02.2019 Annexure C-3 was also sent by the complainant through Sh.Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate asking the OPs to refund the purchase price of mattresses. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel invited our attention towards the photographs which are placed on record(Annexure C-6 to C-9) and Mark ‘A’ to ‘C’.

6.             Though, the defects in the mattresses are not clearly visible from a bare perusal of the photographs(Annexure C-6 to C-9) as well as mark ‘A’ to ‘C’ by themselves, but the OPs have not contested the contentions of the complainant by filing written statement alongwith documentary evidence in the shape of the affidavit etc.   

7.             In the present complaint, the OPs have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent from the proceedings of the present complaint and thus, were proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notices shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.                In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OPs are liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.6,726/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to return  of mattresses. 
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.6,500/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

10.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 24.05.2022

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                Member                  Member                                President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                              Member