BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 213 of 2016      

                                                          Date of Institution:          2.9.2016

                                                          Date of Decision:     23.12.2016         

Rinku Soni @ Kuldeep Kumar son of Shri Majnu Ram, resident of village Nagoki, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Shakti Electronics, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its proprietor.

2. Symphony Limited, Symphony House, FP 12, TP50, Bodakdev, Off: SG Highway, Ahmedabad- 380 054, through its Manager.

                                                                              ……… 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. Suresh Malik, Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite parties already exparte.

ORDER

          In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 20.6.2016 he approached opposite party no.1 for purchase of cooler of good quality and op no.1 showed him symphony cooler of Rs.5500/- and assured him about its best quality. As such, he placed an order for the air cooler manufactured by op no.2 to op no.1 and paid price of Rs.5500/- vide invoice No.588 dated 20.6.2016 and op no.1 had also given one year warranty of the same. Thereafter, he received the cooler at his home but he was shocked and surprised to see that it was not the same which was shown to him rather same was defective one as the front grill, locks, screw locks of the cooler were broken. When the complainant put the same to use, the motor and fan of the cooler did not work properly. Then he approached to op no.1 and complained about the same whereupon op no.1 assured him that cooler will be got replaced very soon but op no.1 has failed to do so. Since then, complainant has visited the op no.1 on many occasions and requested for replacement of above said defective cooler, but to no effect. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 21.7.2016 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops but they did not appear and were proceeded against exparte.

3.                It is pertinent to mention here that after proceeding ops exparte vide order dated 10.10.2016, written version on behalf of op no.2 has been received through post on 20.10.2016 according to which it transpires from the complaint and allegations made in the complaint there is no fault of answering op in the matter and as such there is no allegation against the answering op in the complaint. However, the technical person of answering op visited and rectified the defect. As a fair practice of the Industry, the technical person was carrying call slip and same was signed by complainant as a gesture of satisfaction. Also, the technical person has explained and advised the operating system to the complainant in utmost good faith. The answering op is offering and prepared to arrange visit by technical person and ready to provide expert advise to rectify the problem, if possible.

4.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Gurdeep Kumar Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Rohtash Ex.CW3/A, sale invoice Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 and Ex.C3A, reports of article delivered Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 and copy of ration card Ex.C6.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                There is nothing on record to disbelieve or discredit the above said pleaded case of the complainant. The opposite party no.2 has not annexed any call slip signed by the complainant alongwith above said written version received only through post. The opposite party no.1 who is dealer of Sirsa and from whom complainant has purchased the cooler in question has not even bothered to appear before this Forum to say anything in the matter and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Whereas, in support of his case, the complainant besides his affidavit Ex.CW3/A has also placed affidavits of his real brother Gurdeep Kumar Ex.CW2/A and also affidavit of Rohtash Ex.CW3/A  who is resident of same village of complainant and has mentioned that he is an electrician and inspected the cooler of complainant on his asking and found that front grill, locks, screw locks of cooler were broken and motor and fan of the cooler were not working properly. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to replacement of the cooler.

7.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct both the opposite parties to replace the defective cooler of the complainant with a new one of same quality and in case the same quality is not available, then they will provide a new cooler to the complainant of the same price within a period of two months from today. The complainant have to deposit the defective cooler to op no.1 and will have to intimate the ops about this order in writing well in time and both the opposite parties will comply this order jointly and severally. A copy of this order be also supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated:23.12.2016                  Member.             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.