DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.375 of 28.9.2018
Decided on: 9.7.2021
Bimla Devi wife of Babu Ram Kaushal r/o House No.67, Gali No.5, Near Women Polytechnic college, Ram Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- T.G.Furnishers, Jankalyan Street, Anardana Chowk, Patiala through its Proprietor Suraj Singh Bhatia.
- Suraj Singh Bhatia R/o Prem House, House No.1018, Street No.9A, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM
Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ARGUED BY
Sh.Vishal Dogra, counsel for complainant.
OPs exparte.
ORDER
JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT
- This is the complaint filed by Bimla Devi (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against T.G.Furnishers and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act, (for short the Act).
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one sleeping mattress make Dunlop for an amount of Rs.7000/- on 15.7.2018 from the OP after making the payment by way of Paytm and the OP gave verbal warranty of replacement for next 10 years in case of any defect in the mattress. No payment receipt was given by the OPs to the complainant. It is averred that after using the mattress, it was found that the same were defective and was made up of cheap thermocoal type sheet. The complainant brought the fact into the notice of the OPs who assured that the same will be replaced soon but after some time the OPs refused to replace the mattress. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and tension to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to give direction to the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- i.e. costs of mattress alongwith interest @24% per annum; to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to pay Rs.20,000/-as litigation expenses.
- Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs but despite service they failed to appear and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased the mattress for Rs.7000/-from the OPs but the same were defective and the OPs refused to replace the same.So the complaint be allowed.
- To prove her case the complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the copy of pass book, which shows the payment of Rs.7000/- to T.G.Furnishers on 15.7.2018. As the mattress were defective so the OPs were duty bound to replace the same with new one or to repair the same but they failed to do so. Even otherwise also the OPs did not bother to come and contest the case of the complainant as such the evidence lead by the complainant remained unrebuted.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the price of the mattress i.e. Rs.7000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 15.7.2018 till realization. They are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/-as costs of litigation.
Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:9.7.2021
Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder
Member President
