Haryana

Jind

456

Ram Lakhan yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Next Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Nand Mohan Sharma

16 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 456 of 2011

   Date of Institution: 3.11.2011

   Date of final order: 16.2.2015

 

Ram Lakhan Yadav r/o L-45-A, Near Power House Loco Colony, Jind, Tehsil and Distt. Jind.

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. M/s Next Electronic, SCF No. 29-30, Near Rani Talab, Jind through its Proprietor.

2. Manufacture of IFB Washing Machine(name and address to be disclosed by the OP No.1) 

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:      Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

               

Present:     Sh. N.M Sharma, Adv. for  complainant.

                Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.

            

ORDER:

        The brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased  IFB washing machine model AW-7233 for a sum of Rs.18,300/- vide bill No.6456 dated 23.10.2009 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 gave two years warranty of the above said washing machine. The washing machine was not in working condition owing to its manufacturing defect which defect was noted down by the

                        Ram Lakhan Vs. M/s Next electronic etc.

                                          …2…

complainant within one months of its purchasing. The complainant informed the opposite party No.1 immediately about the defect in washing machine. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 and requested to replace the washing machine or to refund the price of washing machine but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. 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 replace the defective washing machine or to refund the  price of washing machine i.e. Rs.18,300/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 

2.     Notice issued to opposite party No.1 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.1. Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte  vide order of this Forum dated 22.7.2014.

3.     In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. CW-1, copy of legal notice dated 3.10.2011 Ex. CW-2, copy of cash memo Ex. CW-3 and postal receipt Ex. CW-4 and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased a washing machine model AW-7233 from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.6456 dated 23.10.2009 for a sum of Rs.18,300/- Ex. C-3. The opposite party No.1 gave two years warranty of the above said washing machine. The complainant informed the opposite party No.1

                        Ram Lakhan Vs. M/s Next electronic etc.

                                          …3…

immediately about the defect in the washing machine and also visited the office of opposite party No.1 and requested to replace the washing machine or refund the price of washing machine but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. A legal notice dated 3.10.2011 was served upon the opposite party No.1 to replace the said washing machine but of no use. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

5.     The cash memo Ex. C-3 prove the purchase of washing machine by the complainant from the opposite party No.1. The complainant has fully supported his case by his own affidavit Ex. C-1 and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. No doubt, the complainant has failed to produce expert report in evidence but in the interest of justice, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant or to replace it with new one. Parties will bear their own costs.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 16.2.2015

 

                                                          President,

          Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind