Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/130/2023

SANJEEV KUMAR NAGRATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUKIRTI INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/130/2023
Date of Institution	:	6.3.2023
Date of Decision	:	2/1/2024

 

Sanjeev Kumar Nagrath, proprietor of Nagrath sports Inn, SCO 41, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.

 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       Sukirti International B-21-2485, Street No.3, Janta Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Singh Parmar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP exparte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 34&35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is dealing in selling sports goods especially cricket equipment including bats, leather balls, pads, hand gloves helmets etc. of high quality for earning his self-livelihood   by way of self employment. Keeping in mind  requirement of valuable customers, the complainant purchased one  bat knocking machine  from the OP on 24.3.2022 vide invoice Annexure C-2 for a sum of Rs.58,988/-. The payment made by the complainant is reflected in the statement of accounts Annexure C-3. Immediately after the purchase of the machine the same started giving problem as it started giving loud thunderous sound.  The aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the proprietor of the OP who assured that the defect would be removed as and when the machine is handed over to it. Accordingly the complainant after sending the machine visited the place of OP at Ludhiana several times. Finally the said machine was sent back to the complainant by the OP   but when the machine was used by the complainant the same started giving trouble and certain defects were noticed which were brought to the notice of the OP. Thereafter the complainant requested the OP either to replace the machine or refund the amount paid by the complainant and on this the OP agreed to replace the machine and agreed to give new version of the machine for which  the OP demanded further amount of Rs.13,300/- which was paid by complainant  as is also evident from copy of statement of account Annexure C-4 and the machine was replaced by the OP.  However, again when the complainant used the replaced machine (hereinafter to be referred as subject machine) the same started  destroying the wood. Thereafter the parties exchanged correspondence with each other through whatsapp Annexure C-5(colly). Since the subsequent replaced machine again started trouble with certain defects the complainant has left with no other option except seeking refund of the paid amount but nothing was done by the OP.  In this manner the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP  was properly served and when OP did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 16.10.2023.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
   1. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   2. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant firstly purchased the bat knocking machine from OP for a sum of Rs.58988/- as  is evident from Annexure C-2  the copy of invoice and on finding that the machine has suffered with certain defects and the same was  replaced by the OP with new one by again receiving an amount of Rs.13300/- from the complainant, and thereafter, even the subject machine was having manufacturing defect as the same started damaging the wood, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is deficiency on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant and for that purpose the evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   3. Perusal of Annexure C-2 tax invoice clearly indicates that the complainant has purchased the bat knocking machine from OP on 24.3.2022 on payment of Rs.58,988/-. as is evident from Annexure C-3 the copy of statement of account. Annexure C-4  however indicates that an additional amount of Rs.13300/-  was paid by the complainant to the OP which as per case of the complainant  was paid for the replacement of the old defective machine. Annexure C-5  copy of whatsapp chats between the  parties further clearly indicates that  the complainant has requested the OP firstly to remove the defect in the subject machine and finally when the said defect was not removed by the OP despite repeated request asked for refund of the sale consideration of the subject machine.
   4. It has further been proved on record that the complainant has approached the OP with repeated request to remove the defect from the subject machine which started causing damage to the wood  of the bats but the same was not done by the OP. Thus, one thing is clear from the record that there is deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP as firstly the  bat knocking machine initially supplied by the OP had become defective which was admittedly replaced by the OP but even the replaced machine had also become defective as is apparent from whatsapp chats between the parties and the OP could not remove the defect  despite of repeated requests made by the complainant, which proves that the subject machine was having manufacturing defect and was not repairable especially when the entire evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted by the OP. In such a scenario there is no other option  but to order refund of the entire sale  consideration paid by the complainant to the OP for the purchase of the subject machine.
3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

 

1. to refund ₹72288/- (Rs.58988+13300/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e.till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹2500/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹₹2500/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

4. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/01/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member