BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:26 of 2018. Date of Instt.: 11.01.2018.
Date of Order: 12.10.2018.
Om Parkash son of Bala Ram, resident of House No. 1072, Sector-3, HUDA, Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s R.K. Aluminium, Near Gurudawara, Nagori Gate, Hisar through its proprietor/partners.
- Parbhat Doorwin Industry, 39, North West Avenue, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi through its Director.
…Respondents/OPs
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh. Jitender Thakkar, Adv. for the complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that the complainant had purchased a machine for his Tuffen Glass Gate of drawing room for his house situated in Sector-3, Fatehabad from OP no. 1 on 11.8.2016 along-with Tuffin Glass Gate with glass fitted in the same for a sum of Rs. 17,000/-. It is further submitted that the abovesaid machine was manufactured by OP no. 2, payment was made to OP no. 1 and as such the complainant is consumer of the OPs as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that the fitting work of the said Tuffen Glass Gate was done by OP no. 1 in the house of the complainant at Sector-3, Fatehabad and the machine was carrying a guarantee of one year against all the defects including manufacturing defect.
3. It is further submitted that the machine stopped working properly in the month of March 2017 and on account of the same the Glass Fitted in the Tuffen Glass Gate got broken and the glass fell down over the table which was lying there and the same was also broken. Thus, the complainant suffered losses of Rs. 20,000/- i.e. Rs. 17,000/- for the Tuffen Glass Gate and Rs. 3,000/- for the glass lying nearby the gate. The abovesaid loss is attributable to the OPs as inferior quality of machine was sold to the complainant. Regarding the damage an intimation was given to OP no. 1 who assured to visit the house of the complainant but all in vain. Thereafter, the said machine was inspected by M/s Chaudhary Glass Works, Fatehabad who opined that the loss has occurred due to manufacturing defect in the machine. Thereafter, the complainant sent photographs of the broken glass and the machine to OP no. 1 through whatsapp but the same was not replied by him. It is further submitted that the abovesaid act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency and as such the complainant is entitled for a payment of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss suffered by him and the complainant is further entitled for a payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. Hence, the present complaint.
4. The summons issued to OP no. 1 received back with the report of refusal and as such OP no. 1 was proceeded against exparte on 5.7.2018. Despite proper service OP no. 2 also did not appear before this Forum and as such he was proceeded against exparte on 26.6.2018.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-1 along-with the documents as Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
6. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a machine along-with Tuffin Glass Gate for drawing room of his house situated in Sector 3, Fatehabad from OP no. 1 for an amount of Rs. 17,000/- and payment of the same was made by him to OP no. 1. OP no. 2 is manufacturer of the abovesaid machine. One year warranty was also given by the OP no. 1 regarding the abovesaid machine. It is further the case of the complainant that in the month of March 2017 the said machine stopped working properly and on account of the same the glass fitted in the gate got broken. The abovesaid loss has occurred to the complainant on account of fact that the machinery in question was having a manufacturing defect.
7. To prove its case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure C-1, wherein the averments made in the complaint have been re-asserted. In support of its case, the complainant has also tendered in evidence inspection report by Chaudhary Glass Works, Fatehabad who vide the abovesaid inspection report has opined that the loss has been caused on account of defect in the machine. In support of its case, the complainant has also relied upon his correspondence on whatsapp i.e. Annexure C-5. The complainant has also placed on record the photographs as Annexure C-3 and Annexure C4 and a bill of Rs. 16,873/- as Annexure C-2 in support of his case.
8. Since both the OPs did not appear before this Forum as such the averments of the complainant has gone unrebutted. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OPs in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the OPs are directed for making a payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as damage caused to him. The OPs are further directed for making a payment of Rs. 2100/- as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant. The present order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the present order, otherwise the abovesaid amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 7% per annum during the default period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM. Dt.12.10.2018
(Raghbir Singh)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Fourm,Fatehabad
( Rajni Goyat) (Jasvinder Singh)
Member Member
