BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.98 of 2017

Date of Instt. 07.04.2017

Date of Decision:05.03.2019

Surjit Singh aged about 57 years son of S. Banta Singh, Proprietor of M/s Guru Nanak Furniture House, Village Bholath, District Kapurthala.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s National Sports World, 6, Adarsh Nagar, Near Football Chowk, Jalandhar through its Proprietor/Partner.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. G. L. Gagneja, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OP exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he had purchased sports treadmill, Model W-378 from the OP, vide Bill No.6212 dated 15.07.2015 by making the payment of Rs.31,500/-. The said Treadmill was purchased by the complainant for the personal use of his wife, as his wife namely Balbir Kaur is suffering from obesity i.e. over weight and doctor advised her to use Treadmill for exercise to loose her weight, so that she can keep up her health. After some days of the said purchase of the Treadmill, the same did not work properly, whereas warranty of the said product is 2 years as mentioned in the bill. After few days from the purchase of the said Treadmill, it was not working properly and in this regard, the complainant made requests several time by telephonic conversation and by personal visits at the office of the OP, but the OP assured the complainant to make it repair in its good working condition. The OP only made assurance, but not provided any service and failed to repair the said Treadmill and failed to make it good and neither replaced the same. Rather ultimately the OP refused to repair and refused to replace the said sports Treadmill and thereafter the complainant served a legal notice dated 15.03.2017 to the OP, but all in vain and the act and conduct of the OP for selling defective sports Treadmill to the complainant, is unfair trade practice and thus, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to replace the sports treadmill free of cost with a new set of same quality and to handover the same to or to refund the sale price of the said product and further OP be also directed to pay damages due to deficiency in service and negligence in service and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, but despite service OP did not come present and ultimately, OP was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 17.05.2017.

3. In order to prove the exparte claim of the complainant, the complainant along with his counsel Sh. G. L. Gagneja, Adv tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and then tendered into evidence affidavit of Balbir Kaur wife of the complainant as Ex.CB along with document Ex.C-6 i.e. Copy of Medical Prescription Slip and then closed the evidence.

4. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

5. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a sports Treadmill on 15.07.2015 against the bill Ex.C-1 for an amounting to Rs.31,500/-, but since the date of purchase, the complainant alleged that there is some defect in the Treadmill and it was not functioning properly, regarding that the complainant has not made even a single complaint to the OP, if made, then it should be mentioned in the complaint, but the complainant silent in regard to making written complaint to the OP. Simple orally stating that a complaint was made, is not sufficient because to prove the allegation, there must be some documentary evidence.

6. Apart from above, for the argument sake, if we admitted that the complainant made oral requested to the OP for repairing the product in question, means after few days from the purchase, means in the month of July, 2015, but if the OP did not rectify the defect, then why the complaint has been filed after the period of about almost two years, which shows that there is no major defect in the sports Treadmill rather the complainant wants to get it replaced with the new one, while filing the instant complaint. It is bounded duty of the complainant to prove and establish on the file by report of the some mechanic/engineer that there is a major defect in the product, but no such report or evidence of any expert has been produced on the file by the complainant. So, in the absence of any such type of evidence, it is not possible to accept the oral version of the complainant. So, accordingly, we find no solid substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

05.03.2019 Member President