BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 111 of 2021      

                                                          Date of Institution: 14.06.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:   30.01.2023. 

Sahil Bathla, aged 30 years son of Shri Pawan Kumar, resident of #339, Ekta Nagar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.                                                                                                                                                         ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Sunshine Industries, situated at H. No. 13, Old Pole No.56, G/F Right Side, B-365, Village Nangli Sakarwati, nearby Nangli Sakarawati Metro Station, New Delhi- 110043, through its proprietor namely Rajdeo Kumar Parsad.

2. Rajdeo Kumar Parsad, Proprietor of Sunshine Industries, situated at H. No.13, Old Pole No.56, G/F Right Side, B-365, Village Nangli Sakarwati, nearby Nangli Sakarawati Metro Station, New Delhi- 110043.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

         SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER                      

         SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA… ……….MEMBER               

Present:         Complainant in person.

Opposite parties already exparte.

ORDER

          In brief, the case of the complainant is doing the business of making snacks i.e. Matar & Mathi for earning his livelihood and provides high quality of these products to his customers and as such his business is increasing day by day. It is further averred that complainant in order to upgrade his business started searching for automatic machine. The op no.1 is dealing in the business of sale purchase of food processing machine etc. and is running a Industry under the name and style as “Sunshine Industries” and it claiming itself to be the best in this field. That believing upon the advertisements published by op no.1 in the City on 05.06.2020, the complainant approached the op no.1 in this regard and op no.1 assured him that there is one year warranty of the product in question and also assured about the best services. That thereafter on 10.12.2020, complainant through Google Pay paid an amount of Rs.5000/- to op no.1 as booking amount. Thereafter also as per the request made by op no.1, the complainant further paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- through Google Pay on 16.12.2020 and at that time op no.1 assured him that machine will be delivered at his address within two three working days. It is further averred that thereafter on 20.12.2020, the complainant received the delivery of the machine, but when he opened the box, he was shocked to see that the parts of the machine were not complete and the bill of the machine was not supplied to the complainant. That in this regard complainant immediately contacted to the op no.2 through telephone and disclosed that without parts of the machine, same could not run upon which op no.2 regretted for the inconvenience and further assured the complainant that within three four days he will get replaced the machine with new one. The complainant kept waited for the period given by op no.2, but thereafter when complainant contacted to op no.2, he did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant rather always lingered on the matter with one pretext or the other.   

2.       It is further averred that till today complainant is roaming through the doors of the office of ops time and again but with no result. The complainant also contacted with the op no.2 and requested him either to get replaced the machine or to make refund of the amount, but this time, op no.2 instead of listening the complainant threatened him and flatly refused to replace the machine and to refund the amount. That complainant is a small scale businessman and due to such act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has undergone huge financial loss and harassment as complainant in order to purchase the machine also borrowed the amount from his nears and dears. It is further averred that since from the date of purchase of machine, same is lying with the complainant as a scrap material. Hence, this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Notice was also issued to the ops through whatsapp which was duly sent and received by ops but none appeared on behalf of ops. Hence, ops were proceeded against exparte.

4.       In his exparte evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document regarding transaction of the amounts Ex.C1.

5.       We have heard the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

6.       The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on file a document Ex.C1 regarding transactions of the amount paid to ops for purchase of the machine in question for preparing above said food items i.e. Mathi and Matar. During the course of arguments, complainant has also produced on record copy of statement of account. The perusal of these documents i.e. Ex.C1 and statement of account reveals that complainant has made payment of Rs.55,00/- to the ops for purchasing the machine in question. However, according to the complainant the machine supplied by the ops was without parts and as such same is defective and is lying with him as scrap and he could not use the same since its beginning. The ops neither got replaced the machine with a new one as per assurances given by them nor refunded the amount of Rs.55,000/- paid by him to the ops. The pleadings and the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged and unrebutted as ops did not bother to appear before this Commission despite notice and opted to be proceeded against exparte. The ops have supplied a defective machine without parts to the complainant and then have not redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant and therefore, ops are indulged in unfair trade practice and have caused deficiency in service to the complainant. The ops either are liable to supply a new defect free machine to the complainant or to make refund of the amount of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant.

7.       Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against the opposite parties and direct the ops to supply a new defect free machine of the same price to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which ops will be liable to refund the amount of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The ops are liable to comply with this order within above said stipulated period, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the above said amount of Rs.55,000/- at the rate of @6% per annum from the ops from the date of this order till actual payment. The complainant will have to hand over the defective machine to the ops on receiving new machine or receiving amount in question from ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                             Member      Member                President,

Dated: 30.01.2023.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK