Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/404

Ramesh Talwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Super Fitness Shoppee - Opp.Party(s)

In person

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 404 of 2011

 

                                                Date of Institution: 03.03.2011.

                             Date of Decision  : 10.02.2015.

 

Ramesh Talwar 1006 G, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant.

Versus

 

Super Fitness Shopee, Near Punjab Kesari Office, Domoria Pull Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its owner Sh. Sanjay Kumar.

                                                     ….Respondent/opposite party

    

Appeal against order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant             :     None (By post)

For the respondents        :     None

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

                    The appellant (complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (opposite party in the complaint) challenging order dated 14.09.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, (in short, “the District Forum”). This appeal has been received by post and thereafter the appellant appeared in pursuant to notice issued to him, vide order dated 21.04.2011 and thereafter none has appeared before this Commission. The District Forum directed the OP to rectify the defect, if any, in the Treadmill to the satisfaction of the complainant by virtue of impugned order.

2.                The complainant has filed the complaint against the OP on the averments that he purchased one Treadmill with an objective to exercise at home to achieve fitness, vide bill No.20 dated 15.05.2010 for Rs.29,012/-. The Treadmill was delivered to the complainant and payment was made in cash. The Treadmill started giving troubles from the very beginning. The matter was brought to the notice of OP, but the problem was not removed therein and it persisted and the OP (seller) changed the Treadmill and thereafter it has not worked well and OP also changed the motor of this Treadmill, but the problem persisted. The wife of the complainant suffered physical injuries, while working on the Treadmill. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint before District Forum directing the OP to pay him the cost of the Treadmill of Rs.29,012/- and compensation of Rs.29,012/- for mental harassment and physical injuries and Rs.1500/- as interest totaling in Rs.59,524/-.

3.                Notice was sent to OP by District Forum and OP was set ex-parte, vide order dated 18.08.2010.

4.                 The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, photostat copy of the retail invoice No.20 dated 15.05.2010 Ex.C-1, copy of complaint to OP Ex.C-2, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-3 and C-4, Ex.C-5 is the visiting Card of OP and closed his evidence. On conclusion of ex-parte evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana disposed of the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to rectify the deficiency in the Treadmill to the satisfaction of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant through post before this Commission.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case as the complainant has not appeared after putting in appearance before this Commission on 3rd June, 2011. None appeared for the OP now respondent in this appeal. We, thus, proceed to dispose of this case on the basis of its merits in the light of evidence on the record.

6.                 The affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A has been examined by us on the record. He has stated in this affidavit that he has purchased the Treadmill from the OP, vide bill dated 15.05.2010 for Rs.29,012/-. He further stated that Treadmill gave the problems and he brought this fact to this notice of OP. The OP changed the Treadmill in the middle of June, 2010. The new Treadmill was also not free of problems and his wife also suffered from some physical injuries, while plying it. He has stated that he is entitled to the return of the cost of the Treadmill and compensation in his affidavit, Ex.C-1 is the copy of the bill for purchase of this Treadmill by the complainant for Rs.29,012/-, Ex.C-2 is the notice sent to the OP by the complainant, Ex.C-3 and C-4 are the copies of the receipts. This is the only evidence available on the record in this case. The statement of the complainant in the affidavit is to the effect that the Treadmill gave the problems and the problems persisted despite supply of new Treadmill by the OP. The complainant has not examined any expert on the record to prove any defect in the Treadmill in question. The complainant now wants the refund of the price of the Treadmill to him. It is for the complainant to establish on the record that the Treadmill was defective and he has not tendered any cogent evidence on the record to this effect except his bald affidavit. Similarly, no expert witness has been examined by him on the record in this regard to prove it. Even, as per the stand of the complainant, the OP replaced the Treadmill with the new one and even changed the motor of the Treadmill. We find that it was imperative for the complainant to examine some expert evidence on the record to establish this fact. However, in view of affidavit of complainant CW-1/A and the OP being ex-parte in this case, we find that District Forum has rightly given the directions to the OP to rectify the defect, if any, in the Treadmill after its examination to the satisfaction of the complainant. We find no material infirmity or illegality in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case and the same is hereby affirmed in this appeal.

7.                In the light of our above discussions, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.                 Arguments in this appeal were heard on 09.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February  10, 2015.                                                                                   

(MM)