District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.40/2020.

 Date of Institution: 16.01.2020.

Date of Order: 18.10.2022.

M/s. Guruteg Bahadur Medical Store, FCA-1958, SGM Nagar, 22 ft. Road, Faridabad, through its proprietor Harvinder Pal Singh s/o Shri Manohar Singh R/o H.NO.5-C/86, NIT, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Ms/s. MNC Trade Links, Plot NO.33, Sector-24, Faridabad through its Authorized Signatory.

2.                Devyani Food Industries Ltd.,  31, Secator-44 Road, Kanhai colony, Sector-44, Gurugram , Haryana – 122002 through  its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Rais Khan,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Pankaj Singh, counsel for opposite party No.1.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 12.03.2020.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was running a Chemist shop at the above said address with the name & style of M/s. Guruteg Bahadur Medical Store.  The representative of the opposite party No.2 had approached to the complainant to sell their product i.e. Ice Cream of Cream Bell at their shop and assured the complainant that their company would give good return to them. For increasing of income of his livelihood upon which the complainant had agreed for the same.  The representative of the complainant firm had told to the complainant that they would take a sum of Rs.5000/- from them to provide a new fridge to them to keep the products i.e. Ice Cream in the same.  On believing the words of the representative of the opposite party No.2, the complainant had given a DD of Rs.5000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Faridabad to the representative of opposite party No.2.  Thereafter the opposite party No.1 had supplied a fridge I.D. NO. D-3156 on behalf of opposite party No.2 in the middle of the month of March, 2019. Thereafter, the complainant purchased the product of opposite party No.2 and kept the same.  But after some time the said fridge had started to crate problem in smooth running and products, which were kept in the same had started to become melt.  Upon which the complainant had made a complaint to opposite party No.2 on 31.03.2019 vide complaint No. 183134.  Thereafter, the engineer/mechanic of opposite party No.2 had visited to the shop of the complainant and repaired the same and assured the complainant that now the said fridge would run smoothly. The said fridge had many times created problem and products of the complainant had become melt upon which the complainant had made several complaints to opposite party No.2 vide complaint NO. 186413 dated 23.4.2019, 191862 dated 02.06.2019, 195622 dated 02.07.2019 and 197951 dated 26.07.2019.  It was submitted that during the said complaints, the engineer/mechanic of the  opposite party No.2 several times visited at the shop of the complainant and repaired the said fridge by filling gas as well as by changing the compressor the same.  But the said fridge could not get repair and could not run in smooth condition due to which the products of the complainant approx. 9,000/- had become destroyed and the reputation of the complainant had also tarnished in the market. The opposite parties had supplied a defective fridge to the complainant due to which the complainant had suffered the loss of Rs.9,000/- approx. due to damage/melt of the ice cream as well as the complainant had suffered mental tension, agony and harassment for which the complainant was entitled to get compensation  from the opposite parties. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                replace the said defective fridge with a new one;

b)                Rs.9,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. form the dae of causing of the loss till its final realization.

 c)                pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

d)                 pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Registered notice issued to opposite party No.1 on 11.2.2020 not received back either served or unserved.  Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that Item Delivery confirmed.  The period of one month had elapsed.  Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.03.2020.

3.                Opposite party No.2  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that    the complainant had no cause of cause  to file the complaint.   The complainant had not came with clean hands.  The complainant had failed to produce any report of the expert regarding his allegation. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– M/s. MNC Trade Links & Another with the prayer to: a)  replace the said defective fridge with a new one; b)        pay Rs.9,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of causing of the loss till its final realization. c) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d)  pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Harvinder Pal Singh,, Ex.C-1 – Bank statement, Ex.C-2 to 7– Tax invoices

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly

agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Bhaskar Mishra, Legal Manager, Devyani Food Industries Limited Plot No.33, Sector-44, Gurugram.

7.                During the course of arguments, Shri Pankaj Singh, counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement that without prejudice company is ready to make the payment of Rs.5000/- in replacement of the fridge.

8.                On the  basis of the statement of the counsel for the opposite party  No.2,  the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed with the direction to opposite party No.2 to pay Rs. 5000/- to the complainant for the replacement of the fridge.  Opposite party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  18.10.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.