BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.         

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 51 of 2014                                                                          

                                                          Date of Institution         :    24.4.2014

                                                          Date of Decision   :    25.7.2016

Inderjeet Singh, Advocate, District Courts, Sirsa, tehsil and distt. Sirsa.           

                                                                             ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Nagpal Battery Store, Rori Bazar, adjoin to Subhash Chowk, Sirsa, tehsil and distt. Sirsa.

2. IFB Industries Ltd., Office at 14, Taratola Road, Kolkata-700088 (Head Office).

3. Manavi Enterprises, Balaji Market, near Raju Refrigeration, Begu Road, Sirsa (Haryana Care Centre).

                                                                        ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

          SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh.Ganesh Sethi,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

                   Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte vide order dt.9.11.2015.

          ORDER

          Case of complainant is that he had purchased a Chimney Make IFB for Rs.2800/-  vide invoice no.7205 dt. 27.4.2013 from opposite party no.1 with warranty of one year against all types of manufacturing defects. But, since the date of its installation, there was problem in the working of the Chimney.  Therefore, he approached opposite party no.1, who got checked out  and detected the problem in the Chimney and, thereafter, assured that as the stock of fresh chimney is not available at his shop, they would manage the replacement of the chimney from the company within a very short period. The complainant, thereafter, visited the opposite parties several times, but to no effect. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite parties, either to replace  the Chimney or to refund its price of Rs.2800/- with upto date interest, besides damages for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                  Aforesaid case of the complainant is contested only by opposite party no.1, as opposite parties no.2 and 3 were duly proceeded exparte. Opposite party no.1 has filed its reply, which is that of total denial. It is averred that the complainant never got fitted the chimney as per the guidelines of the company. He also never lodged any complaint in the service centre and approached to the op no.1 only one time regarding learning the proper functioning of the chimney.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record, various documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4, including Ex.CW1 and Ex.CW2- his own supporting affidavit and supporting affidavit of Mechanic, whereas opposite party no.1 has simply placed on record, affidavit of its proprietor Ex.R1.

4.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.                Simple vague denial of opposite party no.1, is no denial in the eyes of law. By aforesaid evidence i.e Ex.C1-cash memo, it is proved to the hilt that on 27.4.2013, Chimney was purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 for Rs.2800/-.  From his said own affidavit of the complainant as well as from Inder Singh Mechanic, it is also proved that the Chimney purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1 was not working due to manufacturing defect. Plea of opposite party no.1 that he only sells the products of the company on nominal margin, in the same sealed condition, in which he receives it from the company, is of no material help to him. He has several and joint liability towards his customers, in case sold items is defective.

6.                 Selling a defective chimney set and then not repairing the same, is not only gross deficiency of service, but is also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  

7.                Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties to refund the price of the chimney i.e. Rs.2800/- to the  complainant, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of purchase i.e. 27.4.2013, till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded litigation expenses of Rs.500/-.  Opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply the order.

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated:25.7.2016.                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.

Inderjeet Singh    Vs.  Nagpal Battery.

Present:       Sh.Ganesh Sethi,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

                    Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte vide order dt.9.11.2015.

          Arguments heard.  Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                  President,

Dated:25.7.2016.                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                         Member.