Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/4/2019

Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singla Sanitary - Opp.Party(s)

B.S Samota

31 May 2023

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/4/2019
( Date of Filing : 04 Jan 2019 )
 
1. Balbir Singh
Son of Sher Singh Vpo Loharu Road Charkhi Dadri
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Singla Sanitary
Maham Gate Bhiwani
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. Saroj bala Bohra PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. D.M Yadav MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.4 of 2019

                                                DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 07.01.2019

                                                            DATE OF ORDER: -             31.05.2023

 

Balbir Singh Phogat son of Sh. Sher Singh Phogat, resident of Phogat Palace, Loharu Road, CharkhiDadri, Tehsil and District CharkhiDadri.

 

            ……………Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

  1. Singla Sanitary Store, Meham Gate Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
  2. Hindware care, having its branch office 301-302, Park Centra, Sector 30, NH-8, Gurugram through its branch manager.

 

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

BEFORE:       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Sh. D.M. Yadav, Member

 

Present:-          Shri BS Samota, Advocate for complainant.

            OP no. 1 & 2 already exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

SarojBalaBohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that complainant had purchased a hindware one piece (internal fitting/PVC Cistern) from the OP no. 1 for a sum of Rs.8,700/- alongwith washing + pedishal one piece for a sum of Rs.3100/- and H/F one piece for a sum of Rs.1,150/- i.e. for a total sum of Rs.14,650/- including all type of charges vide bill no. 691 dated 4.3.2017 with 10 years warranty.  It is alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the Hindware piece from the date of its purchase but the manufacturer had applied some detergent/polish over the defect present in the hindware sheet.

 

 

 

 

2.                     It is alleged that in the first week of December 2018, the defect became visible when it was properly washed by complainant, then complainant made a complaint to the OPs on toll free no.18002007577 and then OP no. 2 asked the complainant to send the photographs of the same but the OP no. 2 replied that the sheet was broken by the complainant.  The complainant also made complaint to OP no. 1 for replacing the defective piece, but the OP no. 1 not paid any heed on the complaint.  The complainant visited office of the OPs many times but they did not pay any heed.  The complainant served a legal notice on dated 20.12.2018 but the OPs have not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. 

3.                     Therefore, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.8,700/- as price of defective Hindware sheet alongwith 18% interest upto date, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as losses suffered by the complainant due to negligent act and conduct of the OPs alongwith interest 18% till payment, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, humiliation, mental tension and Rs.5,000/- as costs.  Hence, this complaint.

4.                     No one has appeared on behalf of OP no. 1, hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.3.2014.

5.                     On appearance, OP no. 2 filed written statement alleging therein that neither any expert opinion is placed on record by the complainant nor there is anything on record to even prima facie suggest that the product in question was suffering from any kind of defect.  The complainant purchased the product in question from OP no. 1 and the answering OP was not privy of contract of sale between OP no. 1 and complainant.  It is submitted that there was crack from inner side of the product in question, which was occurred due to negligence and improper use on the part of complainant but as a goodwill of the answering OP he issued a replacement letter dated 3.1.2019 .  The answering OP as well as OP no. 1 called complainant many times for collecting the product but complainant refused to take the replacement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.                     On several dates, OP no. 2 not present, hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 1.10.2021.

7.                     To prove its complaint, thecounsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit as Exhibit CW1/A and documents  Annexure C1 to Annexure C11 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt.18.03.2021.

8.                     We have perused the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.  After hearing arguments and going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that in the present case, the complainant purchased a hindware one piece (internal fitting/PVC cistern) for a sum of Rs.8,700/-alongwith washing + pedishal one piece for a sum of Rs.3100/- and H/F one piece for a sum of Rs.1,150/- i.e. for a total sum of Rs.14,650/- including all type of charges vide bill no. 691 dated 4.3.2017 from the OP no. 1  within warranty period as Annexure C-2 but the hindware piece found defective.  The grievance of the complainant is that there is manufacturing defect in the hindware piece from the date of its purchase but the manufacturer had applied some detergent/polish over the defect present in the hindware sheet.  The complainant made a complaint to the OPs but they did not pay any heed.  No one has appeared on behalf of OPs.  Hence they are proceeded against exparte.  Photographs Annexure C-8 to Annexure C-10 placed on record, which shows that there is manufacturing defect in the hindware piece and the complaint of the complainant is genuine. Hence the opposite party no. 1&2  are liable to compensate the complainant.  The complainant visited the office of the OPs many times but they did not pay any heed which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

9.                     In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the Opposite party no. 1& 2 (jointly and severally) to refund the price of the hindware piece i.e. Rs.8,700/- (Rupees Eight  thousand seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.07.01.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand  only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.           

                        Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 31.05.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)                  (SarojBalaBohra)           

   Member.                       Presiding Member,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

                                     

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Saroj bala Bohra]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.M Yadav]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.