Haryana

Kurukshetra

232/2016

Aman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paras Enterpries - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Tanwar

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no. 232/16.

Date of instt. 1.8.16. 

                                                       Date of Decision: 15.1.2018.

 

Aman Kumar son of Ram Kumar, resident of House No,.811, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Paras Enterprises, Paras Complex, Paras Road, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor.
2. M/s Whirl pool of Indian Limited Whirlpool House Plot No.40, Sector-44, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                             

 

 

Before                          Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

        Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member                              

        Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

 

Present:          Sh.  Vijay Tanwar, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. Mohit Goel, Adv. for Op No.1.

 Sh. M.S.Budhwar, Adv. for OP No.2.

             

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Aman Kumar against Paras enterprises & another, the opposite parties.

2.                It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased washing machine marka whirl pool for Rs.24,350/- on 19.10.2013 from Ops. At the time of purchase of Machine the OP assured that the said machine is very good quality and assured they will provide the best services without any delay. The Ops have also given two warranties regarding the said washing machine. Since the purchase of the Machine it is not working properly and giving troubles to the complainant and the motor etc. of the machine are defective and the complainant visited the show room of Ops many a times and requested to repair the washing machine but they have failed to repair the same. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the washing machine with new one or to refund the cost of the machine i.e. Rs.24,350/- along with 18% interest and to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared. OP No.1 contested the contested the complaint by filing the written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action as the complaint on the same cause of action had filed and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 1.8.2016 and this fact has been concealed by the complainant from this Forum. However, it is submitted that the washing machine was purchased by the complainant from the answering OP on 19.10.2013 and at the time of purchase of machine the answering OP gave a toll free number of the manufacturing company which is situated at Kurukshetra. There was no defect in the washing machine at the time of purchase and the answering OP has given the warranty of the washing machine as per terms and conditions of the company. The complainant has not approached to the service center of the company. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.                OP No.2 has failed to file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including last one. So, the defence of OP No.2 was struck off vide order dated 7.6.2017.    

5.                Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.                The OP No.1 has filed the document Ex.R1 which shows that the complaint on the same facts was dismissed in default by this Forum on 1.8.2016. The complainant has not got the same restored and the second complaint does not lie.

8.                   So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complaint does not lie and as such, the complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                   Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.

Announced:      

Dt.15.1.2018.                                             (G.C.Garg)

                                                                      President

District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra

 

 

           (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)         (Viraj Pahil)

                            Member                  Member