Date : 17.08.2017

ORDER

Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 08/02/2016 against the OP stating therein that on 26/02/2014 the complainant has purchased a treadmill machine from OP and paid Rs. 28687/- vide receipt no. 230.  Complainant further stated that as the machine was not working properly since November 2015 he made several telephonic complaints to OP to rectify the defects.  The mechanic of OP visited complainant and rectified the machine after 10 to 12 days of receipt of  complaint and assured him that the machine will work properly but it did not do so.   The mechanic of the OP repeatedly rectified the machine during November 2016 but the machine repeatedly stopped working after 1 ½ Hrs.  Complainant requested OP to change or replace the machine but to no effect.  Complainant further stated that due to lack of continuous exercise his health was adversely effected and he suffered a lot of mental harassment . Aggrieved from the acts of OP complainant prayed to direct the OP to replace the defective machine with the new one and to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for mental harassment suffered by him.
2. Notice was sent to OP and OP filed its reply stating therein  that the complaint is baseless and flagrant ,abuse of process of law and to harass and blackmail the OP. OP admitted that the  treadmill was purchased by the complainant but further stated that it did not create any problem to the complainant and  scheduled services were provided by him. OP further stated that in December 2015 motor and PCB costing Rs. 13,500/- was changed on the request of the complainant as a goodwill gesture so that the complainant may not suffer any problem. It is further stated that on 08.01.2016 OP received a complaint from the complainant but when OP called the complainant he refused to take any help from the mechanic and threatened him by saying that he will not allow the  mechanic to inspect  the machine  but he will see OP in the court of law. OP prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.
3. Complainant has filed his own affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Mukesh Sehgal (Partner of OP) has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P. testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed by both the parties and have also heard the complainant and partner of OP.
5. The fact that the complainant purchased the treadmill  with a warranty of 2 years from the OP on 26.02.2014 was admitted by the OP and OP has also admitted  that on receiving the complaint of the complainant in December 2015 he sent a  mechanic who  got  the motor and PCB changed costing Rs. 13500/- but OP further stated that this was done as goodwill gesture as the machine was in working condition and only the belt of the treadmill was dirty and sticky. OP further admitted that a complaint dated 8.1.2016 has been received by the him but complainant refused to take services from the mechanic of the OP. During the course of the arguments also OP offered inspection of the treadmill  to the complainant to which the complainant vehemently refused and asked for replacement of the treadmill or refund of the cost of the treadmill.  Complainant has purchased the treadmill in question on 26.02.2014.  Complainant further alleged that he made several complaints to the OP regarding the malfunction of the treadmill telephonically and OP sent his mechanic  but complainant has  not placed on record any proof of the complaint or service done by the OP however OP himself  has admitted that the PCB and motor of the treadmill was changed in December 2015 as a goodwill gesture . Complainant has placed on record only copy of the complaint dated 08.01.2016 and he himself admitted that he refused to take any   help from the mechanic of the OP and even in the court also he denied to avail services of OP for rectifying the treadmill when the same  was offered by the OP.  Except the complaint dated 08.01.2016 there is nothing on record to show that the complainant time and again made complaints to the OP regarding malfunctioning of the treadmill.
6.  Considering the fact that the complainant has used the treadmill for a considerable period and it is he himself who is not availing the services offered by the OP we direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and litigation cost.
7.  Copy of this order be made available to the parties as per law.  File be consigned to record room.

            Announced this ___________day of __________2017.