BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:129 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 15.05.2014.
Date of Decision:20.07.2016
Vinay Kumar aged 35 years, son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of Rajan Panna, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
Shri Manohar Electrics Works, Near SBI ATM, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani through its Proprietor Ravinder Singh Tanwar.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Raman Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Proprietor of OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased the heater for Rs. 700/- on 22.02.2013 from the OP with six months guarantee. It is alleged that he taken his heater to the OP on 22.04.2014 to rectify the defect and the OP charged a sum of Rs. 400/- from the complainant for repairing the heater of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that since then, the said electric heater is working properly and no complaint has been received regarding the said electric heater from the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith affidavits Exhibit CW1/A to Exhibit CW3/A.
4. On the other hand, OP has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of OP.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that he purchased the heater for Rs. 700/- on 22.02.2013 from the OP with six months guarantee. He taken his heater to the OP on 22.04.2014 to rectify the defect and the OP charged a sum of Rs. 400/- from the complainant for repairing the heater of the complainant.
7. OP in person reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant has brought his heater after more than one year from the date of its purchase to get repaired the heater. He charged Rs. 400/- from the complainant for the repairs of the heater for the broken coil. He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and the complainant is applying the pressure tactics on the OP.
8. From the perusal of the pleadings of both the parties the main facts of the case are not in dispute. The complainant could not produce any cogent evidence that the heater in question became defective within the period of six month warrantee. Admittedly, the complainant has taken the heater to the OP on 22.04.2014 after more than one year beyond the period of guarantee. As per the contention of the OP he charged Rs. 400/- for the broken coil of the heater. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 20.07.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
