Haryana

Ambala

CC/189/2014

RULDA RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RAJESH ELECTRICAL WORKS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: AMBALA

 

                        Complaint Case No.            :     189 OF 2014

                        Date of Institution              :       23-07-2014

                        Date of Decision                 :       29.04.2016

Rulda Ram son of Sh. Chiranjee lal,  resident of Village Chhoti Bassi, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt: Ambala.

                                                                                                                                                        :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                             Versus                                                               

1. M/s Rajesh Electrical Works, Opposite Walia Service Station, Nahan- Kala Amb Road, Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.
2. M/s Hyundai Power Products, through its Customer Support Division M/s LPTPL, C-8 & C-9, Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.

                                                                                                                                                       :::::::Opposite Parties.

        Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:            SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                            SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-           Complainant in person.

                        OP No.1  ex-parte.

                        OP No.2 given up.               

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased an inverter; make Hyundai, U-Smart+ SQ/W-850 with Vatsla Express Power Inverter Battery Model HB-16500 FB  Sr.No.F13HB-18 on 26.06.2013  costing Rs.14,000/- from OP No.1 with a warranty of two years with assurance of very good quality. The complainant is doing the business of tailoring for which requirement of inverter & battery is necessary. At the time of purchase, OP No.1 did not issued the bill rather issued warranty card of Inverter & Battery etc. After 4- 5 months of purchasing the battery, same did not working properly and thus complainant approached to OP No.1 for removal of the defect or replacing of the same. OP No.1 neither deputed any person to inspect the inverter  & battery nor repaired/ replaced the same. There is very much requirement of inverter/ battery while doing the work of stitching and ironing the clothes. Due to not proper working of inverter/battery for the last 4-5 months, the complainant has suffered mentally , physically & financially and  is not in a position to purchase new inverter & battery. At last, the complainant got served registered  legal notice dated 4-6-2014 upon the OPs through his counsel but of no use.  Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.        Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared in person and tendered reply to the complaint wherein he has admitted that he had sold the inverter of Hyundai -850 & battery of Vatsla-150 A.M.P. on 26.6.2013 to the complainant with a warranty of two years but the complainant paid Rs.10,050/- and Rs.3450/- is still due towards him against the sale of said inverter & battery and thus the same could not be replaced due to balance payment standing against the complainant. After filing reply to the complaint, OP No.1 did not bother to contest the  matter  and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 4-4-2016 whereas OP No.2 appeared through authorized  representative Sh. Parveen Sharma who checked the inverter in question vide job sheet No.14900 dated 31-10-2014 and tendered a statement stating therein that inverter in question has been checked and found that the same is working properly to which complainant admitted vide statement dated 3-12-2014  recorded separately and thereafter on the  statement of complainant, OP No.2 was given up vide order dated 3-12-2014.

 

3.           To prove his contention, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed his evidence.

 

4.        After perusal of case file, it is admitted fact on record that OP No.1 has sold the inverter & battery to complainant against a sum of Rs.14,000/- but as per OP No.1, complainant failed to make the balance payment of Rs.3450/- against the said equipments and thus due to non payment, he did not replaced the battery in question though the same is in warranty period. As per our view, OP No.1 is guilty of unfair trade practice by not issuing a bill of the inverter & battery so sold by him to complainant on 26-6-2013. Further, he has failed to produce any document/records wherefrom it may be concluded that complainant has not paid the full price of the battery to him though presumption is that no product can be sold by the businessman/trader without taking cost of the same unless recorded on the invoice/ bill. Besides it, if the version of OP No.1 is taken as truth though not proved, even though the balance payment can be recovered after proving the same to be due in the civil suit but OP No.1 has not initiated any such proceedings as alleged in the reply and thus the version of OP No.1 is not believable. 

                  So, in view of the facts discussed above, the complaint in hand is allowed and OP No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. to replace the battery with new one of the same model sold to the complainant and if the same model is not available, then to pay the cost of battery which he recieved from the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing  of complaint to till  its  realization.
2. to pay  Rs. 3000/- as  costs of litigation.

 

      Further the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:29.04.2016                                                                               

                                                                           

                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                     ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                Sd/-

                      ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )                               

                                      MEMBER