DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                   Consumer Complaint No.1766 of 2020

                                                Date of institution: 09.11.2020

                                                Date of Decision:  09.02.2021

Pawan Kumar Sharma aged 74 years resident of House No.585, Sector 54, Phase-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

…….Complainant

Versus

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

OPs exparte  

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CC is a senior citizen, who went to the shop of the OP No.1 on 11.01.2020 and purchased wall clock of Oreva brand  from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- vide invoice No.6097 dated 11.01.2020. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of the wall clock, OP No.1 assured that the wall clock is of best quality and will not give any problem during its functioning. Even OP No.1 also gave one year warranty to the CC. It is further averred that the CC came to his residence in Phase-2 Mohali and installed the wall clock in his temporary office. After 2-3 months, the wall clock started running slow and was not giving proper timing. The CC immediately contacted OP No.1 and brought the matter to his notice. OP No.1 informed the CC that there is no authorised dealer of OP No.2 at SAS Nagar (Mohali). It is further averred that even OP No.1 gave some contact numbers of authorized persons to repair the wall clock. On contacting these numbers, the CC came to know that these numbers were of jewellers.  As such the CC could not establish any contact on these numbers.  In the meantime the CC got checked the wall clock from Mr. Chander Gupta, who has a shop of wall clocks in Sector 56, UT Chandigarh who informed that the battery of the wall clock needs to be changed. The CC immediately got changed the battery by paying Rs.200/-. Even after replacement of the battery the wall clock stopped giving proper timings. Ultimately, Chander Gupta informed the CC that this wall clock had a manufacturing defect. Chander Gupta even gave his opinion in writing to the CC.  It is alleged that OP No.1 has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by selling the defective wall clock to the CC.

                Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, the CC has sought refund of Rs.1000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.

                Complaint of the CC is verified and is also supported by an affidavit.

2.             The OPs have not appeared and they were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.02.2021 of this Commission.

3.             The CC in support of his complaint submitted documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2.

4.             Since OP No.1 has refused to accept the service of summons of this Commission and has not come forward to contest the claim of the CC, in such a situation, we have no other option except to believe the version of the CC as given in the complaint.  We feel that evidence submitted by the CC appears to be cogent reliable and trustworthy. We also feel that there is sufficient evidence to prove the averments of the complaint. It is proved on file that OP No.1 sold a defective wall clock to the CC and charged an amount of Rs.1,000/- from him. It is writ large on the file that OP No.1 was aware that the wall clock in question was already having a manufacturing defect. Further by not accepting the summons of this
Commission proves the inappropriate  conduct of OP No.1. We feel that OP No.1 has intentionally and deliberately sold a defective wall clock to the CC to part with an amount of Rs.1,000/-. We feel that such unscrupulous traders should be dealt with firm hands, give  the unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 is also clear on the file.

6.             In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP No.1 is directed to refund amount to the tune of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till actual payment. The OP No.1 is further burdened to pay consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) to the CC for harassment as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.

Announced

February 09, 2021

                                        (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                (Kanwaljeet Singh)

Member