Haryana

Kaithal

CC/179/2022

Ranvir Parashar Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Modern Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Naresh Sharma

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.179/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 20.07.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:20.03.2023.

Ranvir Parashar Advocate aged about 62 years son of Sh. Narayan Dutt, resident of Behind Punjab National Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Lawyers Chamber No.121, Distt. Courts Kaithal (Haryana).

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Modern Electronics, Park Road Kaithal, through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Person.
2. Haier Appliances India Private Limited, Plot No.H-6 DMIC Integrated Industrial Township, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201310 through its Area Manager/Managing Director.

….Respondents.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Naresh Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Respondents exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ranvir Parashar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.  

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a fully automatic front loaded washing machine, manufactured by respondent No.2, Model WM HAIRER HW 65-10829TNZP SR No.CEOJG6E0G00T7K690200 from the respondent No.1 on 03.08.2020 for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- vide invoice No.1157 dt. 03.08.2020.  It is alleged that from the very beginning of its purchase, the washing machine was not working properly and was not useful for washing the clothes for the purpose for which the same was manufactured and purchased.  The washing machine stopped running after every five to ten minutes and unable to spin.  It is further alleged that the engineer of respondent No.2 several times attended the complaint but could not remove the defects as the motor of the washing machine was defective.  The complainant remained wandering and requesting the respondents several times including last complaint on 23.04.2022 but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant.    So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

2.             Upon notice, the respondents did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.01.09.2022 of this commission.

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that complainant purchased a fully automatic front loaded washing machine, manufactured by respondent No.2, Model WM HAIRER HW 65-10829TNZP SR No.CEOJG6E0G00T7K690200 from the respondent No.1 on 03.08.2020 for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- vide invoice No.1157 dt. 03.08.2020.  It has been further argued that from the very beginning of its purchase, the washing machine was not working properly and was not useful for washing the clothes for the purpose for which the same was manufactured and purchased.  The washing machine stopped running after every five to ten minutes and unable to spin.  It has been further argued that the engineer of respondent No.2 several times attended the complaint but could not remove the defects as the motor of the washing machine was defective. 

                The counsel for the complainant has stated that the washing machine is defective and is not in working condition and it should be replaced with the new one.  Respondents are also proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time. 

6.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted exparte with cost.  The respondents jointly and severally are directed to replace the washing machine of complainant with the new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant from the respondent No.1 within 45 days from today.  However, it is made clear that if the same model is not available with the respondents, then the respondents shall pay Rs.26,000/- i.e. cost of washing machine to the complainant.  The respondents are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 

7.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.