BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                Consumer Complaint no. 106 of 2021                                                                 

                                                        Date of Institution:          17.05.2021

                                                Date of Decision   :         08.11.2021    

Modu Ram son of Sh. Sahi Ram Bhatia, resident of village Dhukra, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                      Versus

Vishal Electronics, Sadar Bazar Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, through its Proprietor.

                                                                               ...…Opposite party.

  Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:        SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT

MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Som Dutt Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite party already exparte.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as op) on the averments that there was marriage of the daughter of complainant on 13.12.2020 with Surender Kumar son of Sh. Shishpal, resident of Gandhi Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). As such, complainant had purchased a LED of 32 inches for an amount of Rs.9100/- and a mixer juicer for an amount of Rs.3500/- from op and op had assured him that he will get the LED and mixer juicer fitted at the address of above said Surender Kumar by his  mechanic. The op had also received the service charge of mechanic at the time of sale of said LED and Mixer juicer but op did not send the LED and Mixer Juicer at the above said address of Surender Kumar. The complainant approached and requested the op for the same but op is putting the matter off with one pretext or the other, due to which complainant and Surender Kumar are suffering harassment. It is further averred that Surender Kumar son in law of complainant also get served a legal notice dated 15.3.2021 to the op but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the op which received back duly served, but none appeared on behalf of op and as such op was proceeded against exparte.

3.                Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice dated 7.12.2020 Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2 and copy of postal receipt Ex.C3.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.    

5.                The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has also placed on file copy of invoice dated 7.12.2020 as Ex.C1 from which it is evident that complainant had purchased LED for an amount of Rs.9100/-, Juicer for an amount of Rs.3500/- and also purchased some other items i.e. washing machine, press etc. from op. According to complainant, the op had assured him that he will get fitted the LED and Juicer at the residence of Surender Kumar son in law of complainant from his mechanic and also received service charges of the mechanic but despite that op did not send LED and Mixer Juicer to the house of his son-in-law. The complainant has also placed on file copy of legal notice served upon op as Ex.C2. The op has neither replied the said notice nor bothered to appear before this Commission despite service of notice sent by this Commission and opted to be proceeded against exparte. The pleadings and evidence led by complainant against op, therefore, goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. So, it is proved on record that op despite charging the price of the LED and Mixer Juicer from the complainant did not supply the same to the son in law of complainant and did not get the same fitted at the address of son in law of complainant despite receiving service charges from the complainant. So, the act of the op clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of op towards the complainant. The op is liable to refund the price of LED and Juicer Mixer i.e. amount of Rs.12,600/- to the complainant as complainant had to give the said items in the marriage of his daughter which took place on 13.12.2020, but the op has failed to supply the same at the address of son in law of complainant. Therefore, now after passing of about one year of marriage, it is not justified that now op is directed to supply the said items to the address of son in law of complainant. So, we are of the considered view that refund of the price of these items to the complainant will be justified.  

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make refund of the amount of Rs.12,600/- to the complainant i.e. price of the LED and Juicer Mixer alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 17.5.2021 till actual payment within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.      Member               President,

Dated: 08.11.2021.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

Typed by:       Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)