Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/160

Ritik Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vardhman Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

04 Oct 2022

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      160 of 2021

Date of Institution :  22.10.2021

Date of Decision :    04.10.2022

Ritik Bansal aged about 18 years, son of Gobind Rai Bansal, resident of Ward No.14, Tari Wali Gali, Himmatpura Basti, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Vardhman Traders, Plot No.49-52, Krishna Nagar, Malout Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/Partner/Proprietor/Authorized Person.
2. Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd. Onida House, G-1, M I D C, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person

                                              ..............OPs

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:  Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

                 Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Parteek Maini, Ld Counsel for OP-2

              OP-1 Exparte.

 

cc no.160 of 2021

 

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective Washing Machine with new one or to refund the cost of product and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one washing machine make Onida 7.5 Kg fully automatic from OP-1 for Rs.15,500/- against bill no.140 dated 13.04.2021.   said machine is manufactured by OP-2.  OP-1 gave warranty of two years and installed the same at the house of complainant and it was found that it was not working properly. Even it did not wash clothes. Complainant informed about this to OP-1, who sent his official at his home to check the washing machine. Said official checked the  machine and found that it was not working properly as there was some manufacturing defect in it which was non-repairable. After that complainant visited the shop of OP-1 several times and also made requests to OP-2 to correct the defect, but all in vain. Few days ago, when complainant

cc no.160 of 2021

 

again approached OPs with request to either replace the said washing machine or to refund the entire cost of machine paid by him with interest, they flatly refused to  make refund and to make replacement. Grievance of the complainant is that despite several requests and even after lapse of six months, OPs have done nothing useful to repair the said machine and it amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has suffered huge harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses besides the main relief.

3                                              Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.10.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               Notice issued to OP-1 did not receive back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Op-1 declared to have been duly served. Statutory period expired. Despite several calls and long waiting till 4.00 O’ clock, no body appeared in Commission on behalf of Op-1

cc no.160 of 2021

 

either in person or through counsel on date fixed. Therefore, vide order dated 01.04.2022, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.

5                                                 Upon receipt of notice, OP-2 appeared in this Commission through counsel, but despite availing several opportunities, it did not file written statement and therefore, vide order dated04.07.2022 defence of OP-2 was struck off.

 6                                             Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1, document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                               As there is no rebuttal or evidence on behalf of OPs, therefore, we have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for complaiannt and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the record file by complainant

8                                            From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by complainant, it is observed that case of the

cc no.160 of 2021

 

complainant is that he purchased one fully automatic 7.5 Kg washing machine manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 for Rs.15,500/-from against proper bill on 13.04.2021. It is alleged that since the day of purchase, washing machine in question did not work properly and complainant could not use the same for washing clothes. On complaint by complainant to OPs, their official visited the house of complainant. He checked the product and found that there was some manufacturing defect in said machine which was non repairable. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs did not do anything useful to rectify the defect or to make replacement of machine. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal from OPs side. OP-1 has been declared exparte and despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP-2 failed to file written version and therefore, defence of OP-2 stands struck off. There is nothing on record on behalf of OPs to controvert the allegations of complainant.

9                                       To prove his pleadings complainant counsel has placed on record copy of document Ex C-2 i.e copy of bill dated 13.04.2021 that proves the pleadings of complainant that he purchased the washing machine in question from OP-1 for Rs.15,500/-. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant

 

cc no.160 of 2021

 

has tried to reiterate his grievance and has made request for replacement of said washing machine.

10                                  In the light of above discussion, this Commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not replacing the washing machine. Had OPs paid sufficient attention to remove the grievance of complainant and had they initiated appropriate steps to provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant by replacing the said washing machine on requests of complainant, case of complainant would have been different. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to either replace the washing machine in question with new one of same model and same capacity with fresh warranty from the date of delivery within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order or to refund the cost price of Rs.15,500/-paid by him with interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of payment by complainant to OPs till final realization. Complainant is directed to return the defective washing machine to OPs on receipt of new one. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as consolidated compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be

cc no.160 of 2021

 

made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission:

Dated: 04.10.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)       

 Member                                     Member