Bihar

Jehanabad

CC/11/2018

Rambachan Prasad Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sonu Recording Centre - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

      District-Jahanabad

                                                   Before -District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

                                                                                       Jehanabad

 Dated Jahanabad, the 10th January, 2023

 Present :1. Sri Prem Ranjan Mishra,

 President

 2. Smt. Bibha Kumari Sinha,

 Member.

                                                                                  Case No. 11 of 2018

 Ram Bachchan Prasad Singh, S/o late Nanhku Singh, Resident of Village & P.O. kachnawa, P.S. & District -Jahanabad .Complainant

 Versus

 1.Proprietor M/S.Sonu Recording centre, situated inside eastern lane in front of Sheetal Chhaya Mistthan, Village +P.O.+ P.S. Makhdumpur,District - Jahanabad,

 .Opposite Party

 2 Manager,Usha International Limited, Plot No. 15,Institutional Area, Sector 32 Gurgaon, PIN-122001, State-Haryana For the complainant -1. Sri Ram Bachchan Prasad, Advocate (in Person)

 For the Opposite party no.1- Sri Sonu Kumar,

 For the opposite Party no.2- Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate

 JUDG MENT

 PREM RANJAN MISHRA, PRESIDENT,

 Present Complaint (Ext.1) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party

for compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,400/=(Cost of defective goods-Pedestal fan) Plus damage & cost of the physical & Mental harassment of Rs. 20,000/= plus Litigation cost -Rs. 7,600/-, Total Rs. 30,000/=, since the Pedestal fan belonging to the company of Opposite party no. 2, purchased from the shop of the Opposite party no.1 with Instruction manual & warrantee card dtd. 16.06.2016 burnt damaged and became non-functional.

 2. Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Pedestal Fan worth Rs, 2,400/= from the O.P.No.1's shop named and styled as Sonu recording Centre Makhdumpur on 16.06.2016 with which an Instruction Manual cum warrantee card ( stipulating one year period of warrantee )dtd. 16.06.2016 was given to the complainant. But after ten months only, the fan became damaged and non-functional. when the complainant approached the O.P to complain and requested to exchange, the shop-keeper told to return the fan with assurance that he will get the Motor of the Fan exchanged after obtaining the same from the company, hence on 10.04.17 he handed over the fan to him, which was returned to him in September 2017 after repairing. The fan worked for few days but on account of beginning of winter season, the same was kept packed. On beginning of summer season, when the fan was plugged in for running, the same did not run.He got the same repaired through a local mechanic and paid Rs. 400/- even but the fan did not became functional. On 20.04.2018,the complainant went to the Shop of O.P. no.1 and told him to exchange the fan, O.P. became angry insulted through abuses and threw away the fan out of the shop and became bent upon to physically assault him. Thereby he suffered a loss of social respect and dignity amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in total.. Hence, this complaint on 26.04.2018 before this cmmission.

 3. On valid service of notice to the O.P.no.1, he appeared physically in person on 28.09.2018 and filed his show cause and the Opposite party No.2 appeared on 08.07.2019 through his advocate and filed his show cause dtd. 21.11.2019.

4. Case of the Opposite Party No.1 as per his show cause dtd. 28.09 2018 is that the case is not maintainable being barred by limitation. complainant had purchased a pedestal fan on 16,06.16 from his shop and had enjoyed for the full season but few defect crept in after running which was repaired even by the opposite party Defect was caused intentionally as well as through mishandling but the same was repaired and was delivered after running and on the customer's satisfaction. But the complainant invariably used to reiterate his complain and to press him to change the Fan despite the fact that all the terms and conditions of warrantee as well as the instructions of the company was well read over to him where in it was specifically stated that during the period of warrantee the item shall be repaired but the complainant is treating the warrantee as guarantee. Had the applicant contacted the manufacturing company directly on toll free number within warrantee period, technician from the company must have came and repaired But nów after the expiry of the warrantee period, no relief can be granted by the company

 5. Case of the opposite party no.2 is that the case is not maintainable as filed without any valid cause of action just in order to extract money with the plea of compensation despite the fact that there was no deficiency in service or defect in goods . Warranty does not cover damage fault occurred/caused due to physical, external, misuse or due to electric power problem. Under warrantee clause, company is to carry out repairs free of cost while the product is under warrantee period subject to the complainant approaching authorized service centre or the company directly to get proper solution as per the warrantee entitlements, which was never done.

 6. Complainant in support of his case examined himself and adduced his evidence on solemn affirmation on affidavit and proved the following documents as exhibits on his behalf

 Exhibit. 1- Complaint Petition,

 Exhibit. 1/1 & % - Signature of the complainant on each page of the complaint petition,

 Exhibit-2- Statement of facts of the case, on Affidavit

 Exhibit -2/1 Instruction manual cum warranty card of MIST AIR DUOS TM PEDESTAL FAN.

 7. Complainant examining himself as C.W. 1 has in his evidence on solemn affirmation through affidavit has stated that he purchased a Pedestal Fan worth Rs, 2,400/= from the O.P.No.1's shop named and styled as Sonu recording Centre, Makhdumpur on 16.06. 2016 with which, an Instruction Manual cum warrantee card (stipulating one year period of warrantee) dtd. 16.06.2016 was given to him. But after ten months only, the fan became damaged and non functional. when the complainant approached the O.P to complain and requested to exchange, the shop-keeper told to return the fan with assurance that he will get the Motor of the Fan exchanged after obtaining the same from the company, hence on 10.04.17 he handed over the fan to him, which was returned to him in September 2017 after repairing. The fan worked for few days but on account of beginning of winter season, the same was kept packed. On beginning of summer season, when the fan was plugged in for running, the same did not run. He got the same repaired through a local mechanic and paid Rs. 400/-even but the fan did not became functional. On 20.04.2018 he went to the Shop of O.P. no.1 and told him to exchange the fan, O.P. became angry insulted through abuses and threw away the fan out of the shop and became bent upon to physically assault him. Thereby, he suffered a loss of social respect and dignity amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in total , Hence, this complaint on 26.04.2018 before this commission.

 This witness proved the Complaint Petition, signature of the complainant on each and every pages of the complaint and the statement of the fact and the affidavit in support of the contentions made in the complaint as Ext.s 1, 1/1 ½ and 2, respectively. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite Party no- 1 to cross- examine this witness but during Cross - examination on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, this witness stated that he had informed the Opposite party no. 2 through the shop-keeper about the fault in the Fan and only thereafter he sent the notice to the company but he has no document in respect there of

 8. None of the Opposite Party examined themselves or any witness in their support nor proved any document.

 9. Heard learned Advocate for the complainant as well as the Opposite Party no.1 in person and the learned Advocate for the opposite party no: 2 at length and perused the evidences given on solemn affirmation through affidavit and the documentary evidences, the opposite party no.1 neither cross examined the complainant nor ever appeared to adduce his evidence in support of his contentions nor disputed the complainant's contentions either in the complaint or his depositions nor demolished the witness through cross examining him Simultaneously, the Opposite Party No. 2. Even did not produce any witness in support of his contentions in his show cause nor examined nor through lengthy cross -examination demolished the complainant's evidence or could impeach his credibility nor could obtain any thing to disbelieve him. As such , the Complainants case as well as his evidence remained intact undisputed and fit to be used against the opposite Party.

 10. Hence, we are satişfied that complainant has successfully proved his case as per the principles of predominance of the evidences of the parties and the fact that the pedestal fan i.e. goods in question complained against suffered from defects specified in the complaint and the allegations contained therein about the deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practices by the opposite party no.2 and the claim of the complainant for compensation under product liability of the opposite party no. 2 as correct and hence,the complainant entitled to the relief of replacement of the goods with new one of similar description which must be free from any defect (as per section [39(b)] or to return the current price of the new goods of similar description which must be free from any defect and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/= as compensation for physical & mental agony suffered as well as a Sum of Rs. 2000/= as litigation cost within three (3) months from the date of this order otherwise liable to pay the additional interest @ Nine percent (9%) per annum on the present cost of the goods since after three months from the date of this order.

 11. Hence, it is therefore, here by

                                                                                         ORDERED

 That the opposite Party no. 2 must either replace the goods with new one of similar description which must be free from any defect (as per section [39(b)] or to return the current price of the new goods of similar description as per the choice or preference of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/= as compensation for physical & mental agony suffered as well as a Sum of Rs. 2000/= as litigation cost within three (3) months from the date of this order otherwise he

 shall be liable to pay the additional interest @ Nine percent (9%) per annum on the present cost of the goods since after three months from the date of this order till realization. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the opposite party no. 1 & 2 through Registered post with A/D on the requisites being filed by the complainant within seven (7) days from the date of this order.

 13. Simultaneously, let a copy of this order be handed over to the complainant also free of cost.