Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/7

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raja Auto and Cycle Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

27 May 2022

ORDER

  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  FARIDKOT

       Complaint No. :           07 of 2021

                   Date of Institution :      06.01.2021

                   Date of Decision :        27.05.2022

Sukhwinder Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Sadiq, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

 

Raja Auto & Cycle Centre, Shop No.5, Nehru Shopping Centre, Faridkot through its proprietor.

......OP

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Rajesh Rehan, Ld Counsel for OP.

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

 

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OPs for selling

cc no.-07 of 2021

defective bicycle and for seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.12,500/- the cost price of said bicycle and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP that bicycle of Chinese company is of best quality, complainant purchased a bicycle of Chinese company on 26.10.2020 on cash payment of Rs.12,500/-for his personal use, but since the day of purchase, it was not running smoothly and was giving loud sound. On 28.10.2020, complainant approached OP for returning the said bicycle and after checking the said bicycle, OP admitted his fault and kept the same  and told him that his amount of Rs.12,500/-would be refunded after three days as at that time, he did not have money. But Op did not give any receipt regarding return of same. Complainant left the cycle at the shop of OP and thereafter, complainant approached several times at the shop of OP with request to get refund of amount of cost price of said bicycle, but OP kept putting him off on one pretext or the other. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation for

cc no.-07 of 2021

harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.01.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 On receipt of notice, OP appeared in this Commission through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections wherein it is admitted that bicycle in question was sold by answering OP to complainant on 26.10.2020 and at the time of purchase of cycle, complainant was specifically told that said cycle is manufactured by Chinese Company and does not bear any guarantee. It was also told to him that goods once sold would not be returned, but can be replaced and after agreeing to all such conditions, complainant purchased the said bicycle after thoroughly checking the same and after taking a proper ride. Complainant came to OP-2 on 26.12.2020 after  a period of two months and complained that said cycle was not running smoothly. Answering OP got checked the said cycle from a specialist mechanic, but there was no defect in it. It is  averred that complainant was adamant to get refund of

cc no.-07 of 2021

cost of said cycle paid by him. It is further averred that said cycle was running smoothly and there was no defect in it, but for the sake of goodwill, he is ready to replace the said bicycle with new one as per choice of complainant. It is further averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and complainant is stopped by his act and conduct to file the same and even it is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party. Moreover, complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this matter that require lengthy evidence, which is not possible in summary procedure of consumer Commission. However, on merits Opposite party has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

 

 

cc no.-07 of 2021

6                                  To controvert the allegations of complainant, Ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Paramjit Singh proprietor /OP as Ex OP-1 and closed the same on behalf of OP.

7                                    We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                     From the careful perusal of record and after thorough perusal of evidence and documents placed on record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that on 26.10.2020, he purchased a bicycle of Chinese company for Rs.12,500/-, but from the very beginning, it was not running smoothly and was giving loud sound. After two days, complainant approached OP to return the said bicycle and after checking the said bicycle, OP admitted his fault and kept the cycle and told him that his amount of Rs.12,500/-would be refunded after three days as at that time, he did not have money. But thereafter, complainant approached OP several times to get refund of cost price of said bicycle, but OP kept putting him off on one pretext or the other. It amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the complaint. On

cc no.-07 of 2021

the other hand, stand taken by OP is that OP had already told complainant at the time of purchase of cycle that said cycle is manufactured by Chinese Company and does not bear any guarantee. It was also told to him that replacement can be done, but refund would not be permissible and after agreeing to all such conditions, complainant purchased the said bicycle. Before purchasing, complainant thoroughly checked the bicycle and also took a proper ride. Complainant came to OP-2 on 26.12.2020 after  a period of two months of purchase and complained that said cycle was not running smoothly. OP got checked the said cycle from a specialist mechanic, but there was no defect in it. OP offered replacement but complainant was adamant to get refund. Cycle is running smoothly and there is no defect in it. There is no  deficiency in service on their part.

9                               The grievance of the complainant is that cycle purchased by him from OP was not running smoothly and was giving loud sound. Complainant returned the said cycle and OP assured to refund the amount, but till date despite several requests, OP has not made refund for said cycle, which amounts to deficiency in service. OP paid no heed to the requests of complainant to refund the amount of Rs.12,500/- and under compelling

cc no.-07 of 2021

circumstances, he had to file the present complaint. Document Ex C-2 copy of bill dated 26.10.2020 clears the point that complainant purchased the said bicycle from OP for Rs.12,500/-. Opposite party has also admitted this fact in written version that complainant purchased the said bicycle on 26.10.2020 and he brought the same for returning at his shop on 26.12.2020, meaning thereby complainant has not used the same for any long period. It is also admitted that complainant sought refund of Rs.12,500/- from OP. Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his pleadings and has prayed for redressing his grievance. It is observed that despite having sufficient knowledge of complaint got registered by complainant with them, OPs did not bother to redress his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in service.

10                                       Ld Counsel for complainant vehemently argued that at the time of returning the said cycle, OP did not offer to make replacement and even after filing the complaint and during the course of case proceedings, OP did not float any offer to replace the said cycle, but now, at the stage of arguments after about two years, they have come forward with an offer to make replacement. It is contended that complainant has already purchased a new

 

cc no.-07 of 2021

bicycle and now his for bicycle has been fulfilled and therefore, he does not need any other bicycle at this time.

11                                   We have keenly considered the contentions in the light of evidence on record. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the deficiency in service on its part. It is observed that OPs have been deficient in providing proper services to complainant by not returning the amount for purchase of cycle given by him. Said bicycle was not fit to use at road and thus, being not smooth and unworthy to ride at road, complainant did not want to keep the same and that is why he returned the same to OP. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and due to this act of OP, complainant has suffered huge harassment.

12                                     From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by complainant, this Commission is of considered opinion that cycle sold by OP was defective, it was not running smoothly, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is trade mal practice on the part of OP. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP with direction to it to refund the

cc no.-07 of 2021

amount of Rs.12,500/-to complainant. OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 27.05.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)

                                                 Member                         Member