Haryana

Panchkula

CC/387/2022

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE AUTHORIZED SINGNATORY - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

Anil Kumar #1314, Sector-10, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Saraf Furniture, RllCO Industrial Area, Kalyanpura Road, Sardar Shahr, Rajasthan-334103 through authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

                        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member.

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OP already ex-parte vide order dated 03.03.2023.

                                        ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a wooden bed in online mode from OP in the month of November 2021, which on its delivery was found defective being damaged. The OP was informed about the defective product but no response was received from it despite repeated complaints. It is alleged that only the defective parts were taken back in the month of January 2022 and till then, new bed has not been provided in replacement of the old bed. The complainant is suffering from last one year as he is not able to use the bed nor has got the money refunded till date. A legal notice was sent to OP on 03.11.2022, which also had failed to yield any positive response from the OP.  Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 03.03.2023.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                During arguments, the complainant has tendered the details of email communication made by him with OP, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in his affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that he had bought the wooden bed from the OP vide bill dated 23.11.2021(Annexure C-2) by paying a sum of Rs.25,199/-. It is contended that the said wooden bed on its delivery was found damaged and OP was informed accordingly but no heed was paid by OP to his request qua the change of the bed or its repair or the refund of its purchase price and thus, has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint. 

6.               The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.03.2023 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             Evidently, a wooden bed was purchased by the complainant from OP vide invoice dated 23.11.2021(Annexure C-2) by paying a sum of Rs.25,199/-.  As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, the wooden bed was found damaged and thus, he was not able to use it. As per Mark ‘A’, the complainant has been found to have made correspondence with OP on its email i.e.

8.             In relief, the complainant has prayed for refund of a sum of Rs.26,000/- i.e. price of product in question along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges respectively.

9.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.25,199/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum(S.I)w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to return of the wooden bed by the complainant to OP. 

The OP is directed to make suitable arrangements for the pick-up of the wooden bed from the residence of the complainant.

2. To pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

10.            The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 19.07.2023

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                        Member                     Member             President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                               Satpal

                                         President