Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 41.
Instituted on : 18.01.2017.
Decided on : 12.07.2017.
Jai Parkash son of Sh. Sube Singh R/o Village Chiri Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Okaya Power Ltd.(Nealthcare Division), D-7, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041.
- Sharma Electronics, Gohana Road, Lakhjan Majra(Rohtak) Tehsil, & Distt. Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased an R.O. Machine Model NASAKA 24 X 7 Sr. No.RGN No.216011062 on dated 23.02.2016 for Rs.11500/- from opposite party No.2. It is averred that opposite party no.1 is manufacturer and warranty and service card were issued to the complainant by the opposite party No.2. It is averred that opposite party has sold the defected R.O. to the complainant and after some time it became defective and on complaint, opposite party sent the technician but any fault was not found and complainant again requested the opposite parties to send the other technician. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, his R.O. system was not rectified during the warranty period. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the R.O. machine and also to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared but without filing any reply, were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.05.2017 of this Forum for non appearance.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case and has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1 dated 23.02.2016 the complainant had purchased R.O. water purifier system for a sum of Rs.11500/- from the opposite party no.2 with warranty of one year. It is also not disputed that the alleged R.O. became defective within warranty period and as per affidavit Ex.CW1/B of Sh. Rajender Kumar, mechanic of R.O. Machine, the R.O. was defective as the motor and adapter were burnt due to non supply of water.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the R.O. in question was purchased by the complainant on 23.02.2016 with 1 years warranty and the defect appeared in the month of December 2016 i.e. after about 10 months of purchase. On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the R.O.System stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the ex-parte complaint upheld”, as per 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him”. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”, as per II (2009) CPJ 240 titled as Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal vs. Partap Chandra Behera & Ors., Hon’ble Orissa State Commission, Cuttak has held that: “Dealer-Liability-Manufacturing defect-dealer requested manufacturer to replace effective goods having sufficient discharged his responsibility, dealer, cannot be made liable for deficiency in service order against dealer set aside in appeal-manufacturer alone held liable to replace defective goods or to refund price thereof”. However as the defect appeared after 10 months of its purchase, the complainant is entitled for refund of price after deduction of some depreciation on it as is held by Hon’ble State Commission, Panchkula(Haryana) in Appeal no.460 of 2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Thukral Vs. The Mobile Store & Others, vide which Hon’ble State Commission, has directed the opposite parties to pay the cost of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.12911/- after deducting 30% depreciation value of the mobile set alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing till its realization”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price after deducting the depreciation of 20% is justified.
7.. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.1 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of R.O. after deduction of 20% depreciation i.e. Rs.9200/- to the complainant. As per the statement made on 16.06.2017 the R.O. in question is in the possession of complainant. As such complainant shall hand over the R.O. in question to the opposite parties and in turn the opposite party no.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the amount of Rs.9200/-(Rupees nine thousand two hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.18.01.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
....................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member