Complainant Karam Singh Guleria has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that Hand Blender may be replaced with new one and also directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as mental & physical harassment with costs.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a retired Subedar and he purchased a hand blender from 21, Sub Area Pathankot and at the time of purchasing the same concerned salesman given the hand blender marka Morphy company and the salesman told that company has given a guarantee on the product for 2 years and he also told that if any defect accrued in the product within guarantee period then company will replace the hand blender with new one. It was pleaded that after the purchase of blender the same was out of work and complainant informed the opposite party No.1 who told that complainant should approach the concerned service centre and as such complainant approached the concerned service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and told him to repair or replace the product with new one. Complainant also approached the company through e.mail i.e. opposite party No.3 on dated 27/6/15 but he never replaced to the complainant. It was further pleaded that complainant approached the opposite parties many times and requested them to replace the blender with new one which was within guarantee period/time but the opposite parties never repaired and replaced the same. It was also pleaded that complainant is a consumer and opposite parties are service provider but they had not provided the proper service as their terms and conditions, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Sh.Dev Raj Asstt. MGR had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and filed the written reply stating therein that 21 Sub Area CSD Canteen is a Govt. run institution for the welfare of soldiers. It was stated that it collects CSD items for sale from Area CSD Depot Pathankot and sale to the authorised entitled personnel and warranty card was signed by the undersigned only to denote the date of sale of the items. It was further stated that warranty on the product was provided by the manufacturer through their authorised service centres. As such Manager 21 Sub Area CDS Canteen had nothing to do with the replacement/repair of the defective item and the warranty agreement was between manufacturer and the user. It was also stated that complainant may please be directly dealt with the Company concerned i.e. Bajaj Electrical Ltd. 45/47 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai at your end. After filing the written reply opposite party No.1 did not appear and failed to produce the evidence and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.02.2018.      

4.       Opposite party no.2 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.05.2017.

5.      Sh.Pravesh Kumar TSI had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3. Thereafter, Sh.Vinod Harchand Advocate had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3 by filing vakalatnama but he failed to filing the written reply on behalf of opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.10.2017. After exparte proceedings Sh.Vinod Harchand, Advocate again joined the proceedings of this case by moving the application for joining the proceedings at the present stage i.e. evidence on 08.01.2018.

6.       Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with copy of 2 year guarantee Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.

7.       Counsel for the opposite party No.3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Deepak Vats Manager Accounts Ex.OP-3/1 along with photocopy of power of attorney dated 28, March 2007 Ex.OP-3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.3.

8.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We found that complainant has purchased one hand blender from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 had already been proceeded against exparte. Opposite party No.3 was also exparte but later Sh.Vinod Harchand, Advocate joined the proceedings on behalf of opposite party No.3 by moving application for joining the proceedings. At outset without going into the merit of the present case we find that Sh.Parvesh Kumar TSI had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 and recorded separate statement dated 05.07.2017 that “I am ready to replace the old hand blender with a new one of the same make and made failing which I shall refund the amount and also shall pay the suitable cost to the complainant”. In view of the statement of Sh.Parvesh Kumar TSI of opposite party No.3 we deem it fit to dispose off this present complaint by giving the directions to the opposite party No.3 to replace the defective old hand blender with new one besides to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant for unnecessary harassment caused to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of order failing which they will pay the awarded amount with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of order till actual payment.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                               President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

APRIL 23, 2018.                                                                   Member               

*YP*