Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/578/2014

Abhishek Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Time Fitness - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gajender Singh Adv.

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	578/2014
Date of Institution	:	10.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	26/02/2015

 

                  

                                                         

 

Abhishek Rana, Proprietor, M/s Rockk Hard Gym, SCF 5, 1^st Floor, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Time Fitness through Sh.Mukesh Kumar, Proprietor, SCO 50, 1st Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

2.       Sh.Mukesh Kumar, Proprietor, Time Fitness, SCO 50,1st Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Gajender Singh, Counsel for the complainant

                        Opposite Parties exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  in March, 2013 he approached the Opposite Party for purchase for gym equipments namely four treadmills for which a quotation of rates and services was given by the Opposite Party quoting the price of Rs.1,62,500/- per machine with a total price of four treadmills as Rs.6.50 lacs and after including VAT it totaled to Rs.6,62,500/. The warranty for various parts of the machines was covered and clearly mentioned in the quotation, Annexure C-1. After negotiations with the Opposite Parties, he purchased four gym equipment’s namely treadmills for Rs.5,98,500/- including VAT vide bill dated 03.06.2013, Annexure C-2.  It was stated that towards the advance payment of the machines as demanded by the Opposite Parties, he paid a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-  through two cheques bearing Nos.560801 and 560810 for Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.55,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 41, Chandigarh, which were encashed by the Opposite Parties. The statement of bank account is Annexure C-3 and C-3/A.  On 03.06.2013, the machines were delivered to the complainant and the complainant issued a cheque No.560812 for Rs.1,05,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 41, Chandigarh, which was encashed by the Opposite Parties. The statement of bank account is Annexure C-5. The remaining amount of Rs.38,500/- was paid in cash at the time of issuance of the bill dated 03.06.2013.  The complainant alleged that two machines out of the four broken down in the month of July from the date of its purchase and the Opposite Parties was informed accordingly but they did not pay any heed to his repeated calls.   It was further stated that he and his staff kept on calling the Opposite Parties and even visiting their office on several occasions asked for service of the machines but to no effect.  According to the complainant, the Opposite Party told him to get the machines serviced from somewhere else as the Opposite Party was suffering from inadequacy of service staff and so in September end, the complainant got the machines serviced out of his resources which cost him a lot of money and loss of business.   It was further stated that the other two machines also started creating problems and the earlier machines were also not working fine and as such the complainant again approached the Opposite Party for providing a solution and talks were going on for a long time and ultimately, the Opposite Party demanded Rs.1,50,000/- more for providing services to him despite the fact the machines were covered under warranty.  According to the complainant, he has repeatedly been spending money on the repairs of the equipment’s out of his own pocket and suffered a loss in business because of the faulty machines which led to a number of customer cancelling their membership leading to a great loss to him.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Opposite Parties did not appear despite publication of the proclamation in the newspaper Dainik Savera dated 31.12.2014 and as such they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 30.01.2015.
3.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint.  He has also placed on record the copy of the quotation, Annexure C-1  the relevant part of which reads as under:

          “But our treadmill 482 are match with digital screen your specification, for these are the basis functions for a good commercial treadmill.

          But our warranty : one year for all the spare parts, three years for motor, eight years for the frame, we can send your more spare parts when delivery the goods.

          If you still have any doubts, please feel free”.

Annexure C-2 is the copy of the bill vide which the complainant purchased 4 pcs. of motorized treadmill-482TF  for Rs.5,98,500/-.  Annexure C-3, C-3/A and C-5 are the copies of the statement of account of State Bank of India, Sector 41, Chandigarh which shows that three cheques, aforesaid, issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party towards the payment of the said machines were cleared. As per the averments made in the complaint, the machines in question became defective within a few months of its purchase and even as per the warranty clause as stipulated in the quotation, it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to carry out the necessary repairs to make it functional properly which they failed to do so.  However, the Opposite Parties preferred to proceed against exparte despite due publication in the newspaper and as such, the assertions & evidence of the complainant have gone unrebutted. 

5.           It is pertinent to mention that though the OPs have been proceeded exparte and did not turn up to contest the case, but at the same time, it is settled position of law, one has to prove its own case by leading sufficient documentary evidence and stand on its footing, which is lacking in this case from the side of the complainant.  There is no document placed on record by the complainant to substantiate his plea that he had ever lodged the complaint with the OPs with regard to defects in the machines in question and more so, the complainant himself failed to pin-point the defects in the machine, being faced by him, even in the instant complaint.   Furthermore, the law on the point is well settled that if the defect(s) can be set right by repair/replacement of part(s), there is no need to replace the machine as a whole. 
6.           In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case and taking a lenient view in the interest of justice & equity, we deem it proper to direct the OPs to repair the machines in question to the satisfaction of the complainant, as per warranty conditions, without any labour charges and to provide the promised services.  However, there is no order as to compensation and cost.  The complaint stands disposed of in above terms.
7.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

26/02/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

cmg