BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 225 of 2013
Date of Institution : 23.12.2013
Date of Decision : 26.7.2016
Yogesh Kumar Garg, Advocate, District Courts, Sirsa, distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Sodhi Electric Co., Suratgarhia Chowk, Sirsa through its proprietor.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sahil Gaat, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant is that on 19.12.2012 he had purchased a Mixer and Grinder of Sunway company for Rs.2500/-, but the respondent did not issue cash memo rather issued a guarantee card for a period of one year on the visiting card of its shop against any defect in the Mixer and Grinder. After sometime in September, 2013, the said Mixer and Grinder stopped working. The complainant brought the same at the shop of Op, who kept it and on 1.10.2013 delivered the same by charging repairing amount of Rs.500/-, but at that time also, the Op did not issue any receipt. The complainant lodged a protest as the Mixer and grinder was within guarantee period, but no heed was paid. Hence, the present complaint for refund of price of the Mixer and Grinder Rs.2500/- and for repairing charges Rs.500/-. with upto date interest, besides damages for harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Aforesaid case of the complainant is contested by opposite party by filing its reply. It is submitted that at the time of purchase, it was specifically made clear to the complainant that there is no gurantee/warrantee with regard to the working efficiency of mixer-grinder and the terms and conditions thereof were also explained to the complainant. Further, it is pleaded that after purchase of alleged second hand product, the complainant did not approach the op with regard to any defect. However, it is submitted that once a time before filing the present complaint, the complainant had shown the mixer grinder to the Op and on checking of the same, it was made clear to the complainant that this has been gone out of order by way of wrong use and there will be a cost of Rs.200/- approximately on the repairing work of said product, but the complainant lost the tamper and started misbehaving with the Op being a practising Advocate. Remaining averments have been denied.
3. Both the parties have lead evidence in support of their case in the shape of affidavits. The complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit Ex.C1, whereas the opposite party has also placed on record affidavit of its prop.Gurpreet Singh Sodhi Ex.R1.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Simple vague denial of opposite party is no denial in the eyes of law. No doubt, nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the alleged Mixer-grinder was purchased by the complainant from opposite party. However, from the perusal of reply of the opposite party, it is clear that the said mixer-grinder was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. The opposite party in its reply has taken two stands regarding the purchase of mixer-grinder. In its preliminary objections, on one side the opposite party in para no.1 has pleaded that there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased mixer-grinder from the respondent but, it was specifically made clear to the complainant that there was no guarantee/warrantee with regard to the working efficiency of mixer grinder purchased by the complainant from the respondent. The terms and conditions with regard to no guarantee or warrantee given by the company has also been explained by the respondent to the complainant. On the other side, in its parawise reply, in para no.1, it is pleaded that the contents of para no.1 of the complaint with regard to the purchase of mixer grinder by the complainant for Rs.2500/- as stated in this para are totally wrong and incorrect, hence denied. Thus, though the opposite party in its reply has taken two contradictory stands, but it is admitted that the said mixer-grinder was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. Furthermore, from the perusal of para no.2 of reply of opposite party, it is proved that the said mixer-grinder purchased by the complainant had gone out of order and the opposite party demanded cost of repair. It is the liability of the opposite party towards his customers, in case sold item is defective.
6. Selling a defective Mixer-grinder and then not repairing the same, is not only gross deficiency of service, but is also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
7. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.2500/- and Rs.500/- (total Rs.3000/-) i.e. Rs.2500/- the price of the Mixer-Grinder and Rs.500/- as expenses for repair to the complainant , within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 23.12.2013, till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded litigation expenses of Rs.500/-. Defective Mixer-grinder shall be returned to the opposite party by the complainant earliest. Compliance of this order shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
