BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.
Complaint Case No. 125 of 2022
Date of Institution: 17.5.2022
Date of Decision: 21.11.2022
Satish Kumar, age 37 years, son of Ishwar Singh, resident of village Birhi Kala, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
Super Deluxe Agro Industries, VPO Bhagta Bhai Ka (151206) Distt. Bhathinda, GSTIN: 03BYLPD4728GIZM, Tell: 98143-17985.
COMPLAINT UNDER THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
Before: - Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President
Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.
Present: Sh. Saurabh Goyal, Adv. for complainant.
OP already exparte.
ORDER:-
MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Satish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP) with the averments that he has purchased a Wheat Thresher 3 Fan (4 Joint) machine from the OP for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/-on 23.3.2022. It is averred that said machine purchased by the complainant did not work properly and despite telephonic conversation with the official of OP, the OP failed to repair/replace the same. It is averred that there is some manufacturing fault in the said machine and due to the said reason, crop cutting work of complainant is suffering badly and the complainant is suffering economically. It is averred that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the OP either to replace the said machine or to repair the same and also pay compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.
2. Notice to the OP was issued through registered post but none appeared on its behalf and ultimately, this Commission had to pass the exparte proceedings against the OP on 9.9.2022 whereby the OP was proceeded against exparte due to non-appearance before this Commission.
3. In the exparte evidence, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence on 10.11.2022.
4. We have heard the exparte arguments of learned counsel of the complainant and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the complainant very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents placed on record by the complainant.
5. We have perused the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. After hearing the exparte arguments of learned counsel of complainant, going through the entire case file and perusing the documents placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that the complainant has placed on record the bill of purchase of Wheat Thresher 3 Fan (4 Joint) machine vide Invoice No. 88/2021-22 dated 23.3.2022 (Ex C-1) whereby he has purchased the said machine for Rs. 2,30,000/-from the OP. In order to prove his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record duly sworned affidavit of complainant (Ex. CW-1/A) wherein he (complainant) stated on oath that the Wheat Thresher 3 Fan (4 Joint) machine purchased by him on 23.3.2022 did not work properly and when the official of OP was contacted, he (the official) did not give any satisfactory reply regarding repair/replacement of said machine of complainant, whereas at the time of purchase, the OP had assured to repair the said machine by providing on sight service, in case of any defect. It is further stated on oath by the complainant through this affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A) that the OP has failed to repair/replace the said machine of complainant despite several requests and even after service of a legal notice dated 2.4.2022 upon the OP through counsel Sh. Saurabh Goyal Advocate. This contention is duly supported by said legal notice dated 2.4.2022 (Ex. C-2) sent through registered post vide postal receipt (Ex. C-3).
6. We have observed that the OP has failed to appear before the Commission to defend the above allegations of complainant by filing any reply thereof or by any other way. Non-appearance of the OP before the Commission despite the fact that he was issued notice/summon through registered post, shows that the OP has not appeared intentionally which clearly indicates the malafide intention of OP. Hence, it is presumed that the allegations mentioned by the complainant in his complaint supported by affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A) are true and correct and that the OP has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant by not repairing/replacing the said machine of complainant being having some defect in the said machine.
7. From the unrebutted evidence of complainant produced in the form of bill (Ex. C-1), legal notice (Ex. C-2) sent through registered postal receipt (Ex. C-3) and corroborated by affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A) filed by complainant, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
8. In the result, we hereby direct the OP to repair the said machine to the satisfaction of complainant by making arrangements of on sight service at the home of complainant.
9. The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. including litigation expenses to the complainant.
10. The present complaint stands allowed in the manner as indicated above.
11. The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
12. Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
13. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced.
Dated: - 21.11.2022
(Shashi Kiran Panwar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.
