COMPLAINT FILED ON: 27/04/2022

DISPOSED ON: 13/02/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:72/2022

DATED: 13^th February 2023

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                  Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER                     

                  Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER       

::ORDER::

 By Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER.

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking directions against the opposite parties for refund of Rs.52,000/- paid towards purchase of Treadmill, Rs.50,000/- for mental physical harassment and Rs.25,000/- for expenses incurred till today, in all amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- along with interested 12 % p.a. and for such other relief as this commission deems fit.

Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-

 2. The complainant had purchased one motorized Treadmill Model number I 2.5 from O.P. No.2 for the family fitness purpose on 14/04/2018 by paying a sum of Rs.40,000/-. On 16/04/2018 OP No.2 delivered Treadmill to the Complainant’s address. After few days the said Treadmill stopped functioning after which the complainant brought the said act to the Notice of O.P.No.2.  On 07/05/2018, 24/07/2018 and on 02/08/2018 the OPs representative visited the house of the Complainant to repair the said Treadmill after the inspection OPs representative intimated that the said model is of defective one and intimated complainant it is better to purchase another Treadmill model No.I.6 which is amounting to Rs.52,000/-. Then the complainant had given extra amount of Rs.12,000/-. After which on 14/10/2018 OPs had supplied Treadmill model No.I.6 to the complainant but, the said Treadmill stopped functioning within few days of its supply.  After which the complainant had intimated O.P.No.2 representative to rectify the defects.  Again on 19/07/2019 and 29/08/2019 OPs representative visited the complainant house and inspected the said Treadmill and intimated said model is also defective one and it cannot be repaired.  Again the complainant intimated the OPs to rectify defect and also visited office of the OPs several time but the OPs threatened the Complainant with dire consequences and refused to give service to the above said Treadmill and refused to rectify the defect.

        3. Once again on 13/07/2021 the Complainant insisted the O.P. No.2 to provide a new Treadmill of model 1.6 or else insisted to return back the money paid towards purchase of the said Treadmill. After persistent follow up the O.P. agreed to provide a new Treadmill model No.1.6 and towards which OPs have communicated to the Complainant vide through their letter.  On 03/08/2021 the OPs had provided a new thread mill model I.6 to the Complainant and had installed the said thread mill in the house of the Complainant on the same day.  But to the misfortune of the Complainant the said Treadmill model stopped functioning within few days of its installation.

        4. Again the Complainant followed up with the OPs to rectify the same but till today OPs has not come forward to rectify the said defect.  And hence Complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Finally the Complainant has issued legal notice on 15/12/2021, but in spite of the said notice the O.P. has not taken any action to rectify the defect.  Being aggrieved by the said act of the O.P the Complainant has filed this present complaint.        

       5. After issuance of the notice to OP No.1 and 2 the said notice was duly served on O.P No.1 and 2.  But O.P No.1 and 2 remained absent and hence, O.P No.1 and 2 were placed Ex-parte.

   6. Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got marked documents from Ex. A-1 to A-8. Complainant has filed his written arguments and also heard the oral arguments. 

    7. Now, the points that arise for our consideration as follows:

Point No.1: whether the Complaint proves deficiency in   

                    service on the part of the OPs?

Point No.2: Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief

                  as sought in the Complainant?

Point No.3: What order?

   8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

Point No. (1 & 2)  In the affirmative

Point No. (3) As per the final order

:REASONS::

9. Point No. 1 & 2:- on perusal on the pleading of the complaint it is seen that, complainant had purchased one motorized Treadmill Model number I 2.5 from O.P. No.2 for the family fitness purpose. Thereafter complainant had paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 14/04/2018 towards the purchase of the said Treadmill. On 16/04/2018, OP No.2 delivered the said Motorized Treadmill to the complainant’s address. But within a few days of its delivery the said Treadmill stopped functioning the same was intimated to the OPs to rectify the defect and to see the said Treadmill to start functioning on 07/05/2018, 24/07/2018 and 02/08/2018 all the three times the OPs representative visited house of complainant to repair the said Treadmill but after inspection OPs representative intimated the said Model is defective one as such had intimated the complainant to purchase another Treadmill Model No.1.6. Thereafter, on the basis of the intimation of the OPs representative the complainant paid an extra amount of Rs.12,000/- on 14/10/2018 after the extra payment the OPs had supplied Treadmill Model No.I.6. to the complainant, but to misfortune the said Treadmill stopped functioning within few days of its supply. Once again complainant intimated the same to OPs representative to rectify the defect, again OPs representative visited the house of the complainant on 19/07/2019 and 29/08/2019 after due inspection the OPs representative intimated that the said Treadmill cannot be repaired. But after frequent follow up by the complainant with OPs. OP No.2 had assured the complainant that he is going to provide a new Treadmill model No. I.6 vide OPs letter dated 13/07/2021 as per Ex.A-3 and once again Treadmill model No.I.6 provided by the OP which was installed in the complainant house stopped functioning within few days of its installation. But Treadmill provided by the OPs on 03/08/2021 by replacing the old I.6 Treadmill with new I.6 but the said Treadmill has been provided to the complainant in exchange of the old Treadmill without warranty it is the bounden duty of the OPs to provide a new I.6 Treadmill with warranty, but without providing the same the OPs have replaced the old I.6 Treadmill with new I.6 Treadmill is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. For any product after the purchase if any defect is found then the said product should be repaired / replaced with warranty. If any product is provided without any warranty then it is nothing but deficiency in service and not providing the warranty to the said product is unfair trade practice. In the instant case as the OPs has rendered deficiency without providing proper service to the complainant and has made the complainant to run from pillar to post and moreover OPs has provided new Treadmill without any warranty which reveals that OPs has also adopted unfair trade practice. Further, OPs neither appeared in the instance case and the allegation made in the complaint remained, unchallenged. Hence we have no other option just to accept the allegations made in the complaint. For the forgoing reasons we hereby direct the OPs to rectify the defects of the said Treadmill within 30 days from the date of this order and also OPs is directed to provide extended warranty of 6 months to the newly replaced Treadmill. With this we feel that justification can be done to the complainant to meet the ends of justice. 

10. Moreover the complainant has also taken the assistance of an advocate to file the present complaint and hence, complainant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the litigation. Therefore, complainant has proved deficiency service part of the OPs. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.

11.   Point No.3:- For the forgoing reason we proceed to pass the following:

::ORDER::

    The Complaint filed by the complainant U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed in part.

OPs is directed to rectify the defects of the said Treadmill No.I.6 and to provide extended warranty of 6 months to the newly replaced Treadmill.

OPs is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the litigation.

It is further ordered that, the OPs is hereby directed to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of this order.

    Communicate the order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open commission by us on 13^th February 2023.)

  LADY MEMBER                 MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Sri Madhusudhan. V S/o Venkataramayya, by way of   

           affidavit evidence.

Witness examined on behalf of opponent:

Nil.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponent:

Nil.

  LADY MEMBER                 MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

GM*