Haryana

Karnal

CC/132/2017

Luv Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ravenna Fashion Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kapoor

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No.132 of 2017

                                                      Date of instt.: 10.04.2017

                                                      Date of decision 01.06.2018

 

Luv Chopra son of Shri Sunil Chopra, resident of House no.75, Prem Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                        Vs.

M/s Revenna Fashion Pvt. Ltd. 54-B, Sector-18 Gurgaon through its proprietor.

                                                                 …….. Opposite Party.

 

                  Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before      Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-     Shri Sanjeev Kapoor Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite party exparte.

                                 

 ORDER:

                    (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that OP is having exclusive showroom for Fancy suit and matching at Gurgaon. Complainant had purchased one Track suit colour Navy Blue from OP vide bill no.PPS1NV/1617/00558571 dated 08.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.3220/- which was booked by the complainant through internet from Karnal and delivered to the complainant at his house through courier. At the time of selling the track suit OP had assured the complainant about the quality, durability and colour of the said suit. Complainant started using the said track suit. After sometime it started pilling and bobbling. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP and narrated the aforesaid defects and requested to replace the track suit in question. The OP assured the complainant that he would made complaint before the manufacturer and OP assured the complainant that he would made complaint before the manufacturer and also assured that he would certainly replaced the defective track suit very soon. Thereafter, complainant again visited the shop of OP and requested to replace the defective track suit on that OP became annoyed and told that he is not responsible for replacing the defective track suit and thrown out the same on the road and misbehaved with him. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP. OP appeared but did not file any reply after availing several opportunities. On 17.11.2017 when the case was fixed for filing written statement on behalf of OP subject to last opportunity but none has come present on behalf of OP and the OP  has opted to be proceeded against exparte instead of filing the written statement.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 8.5.2018.

4              We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully. 

5.             The case of the complainant is that on 08.01.2017 he purchased one track suit for a sum of Rs.3200/-from OP. It is further alleged that at the time of purchasing the said track suit OP assured about the quality, durability and colour.  After sometime of its purchase it started pilling and bobbling. So, complainant  approached to the OP and complained about the same and requested for replacement of the said track suit but OP did not replace the same. To prove his case, the  complainant produced  on the file in his evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand the OP has not produced any evidence as the OP did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reasons to disbelieve the same. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP has failed to resolve the grievances of the complainant. Hence, the OP is deficient.

6.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to replace the track suit in question with new one of the same make and same value. However, it is hereby made clear that if the track suit of same make and same value as purchased by the complainant is not available with the OP  then the OP is liable to pay to the complainant Rs.3200/- the cost of the track suit in question. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 01.06.2018

                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member