Haryana

Kaithal

CC/84/2022

Pawan Kumar Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiv Shakti Furniture House & Electrical Store - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Virender Sharma

11 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.84/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 05.04.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:11.05.2023.

Pawan Kumar Dhiman S/o Sh. Kali Ram age about 52 years R/o Village Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Shiv Shakti Furniture House & Electrical Store through its proprietor Sh. Sunil Kumar, address at Gaushala Market, Railway Road, now at Opposite Pritam Gas Agency Kalayat, Mobile No.96718-58478.

….Respondent.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Virender Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Respondent exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Pawan Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.  

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased one Mattress from the OP for the sum of Rs.2,000/- vide invoice No.146 dt. 25.03.2021 against the warranty of two years.  It is alleged within six months of its purchase, the above-said mattress lost its pressure and got collapsed.  The complainant informed the respondent regarding the same immediately either to replace the above-said defective mattress with the new one or to refund the actual price but the respondent did not redress the grievances of complainant.  The complainant also sent legal notice dt. 25.02.2022 to the respondent but the respondent did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

2.             Upon notice, the respondent did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.27.05.2022 of this commission.

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one Mattress from the OP for the sum of Rs.2,000/- vide invoice No.146 dt. 25.03.2021 against the warranty of two years.  It is further argued that within six months of its purchase, the above-said mattress lost its pressure and got collapsed.  The complainant informed the respondent regarding the same immediately either to replace the above-said defective mattress with the new one or to refund the actual price but the respondent did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent.              The complainant has supported his versions by way of filing affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3.  The complainant has testified all the contents in the affidavit so set out by him in the complaint.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on file photographs of defective mattress, which are Mark-A to Mark-C on the file.    Whereas, respondent is also proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time.  So, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the OP. 

6.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  The respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from today.  The respondent is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony including the litigation charges to the complainant.    

7.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondent-OP shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:11.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.