Haryana

StateCommission

A/711/2015

ISHWSAR GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JATIN HANS

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.711 of 2015

Date of Institution: 31.08.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 16.09.2015

 

Ishwar Goyal S/o Shri Neki Ram, R/o Village Sankrod, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Proprietor of Babli Misthan Bhandar, Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1.      Voltas Limited, Voltas House A Block, Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar Road, Chinchpoli, Mumbai-400033 (Though its Managing Director).

2.      The Aggarwal’s, 111, Crown Plaza (Old bus stand) Bhiwani, 127021, Haryana.

3.      Mahender Vadhwa, authorized Service Centre Voltas Limited Krishna Colony, Bhiwani.

         …..Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Jatin Hans, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased Voltas500 Ltrs. Soft Look Chest Freezer HTD from Opposite party No.2 against payment of Rs.26,500/-. When started it was not working properly and information was given to O.P.No.3.  They promised to rectify the problem, but, to no use.  O.Ps. be directed to return the sale price and pay for mental harassment etc.

2.      Defence of O.P.No.1 was struck off and O.P.Nos.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex parte before the District Consumer Disputed Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (In short “District Forum”).

3.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, learned District Forum ordered as under:-

“In view of the above discussions, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the Ops are directed to make necessary repair in the freezer of the complainant. The complainant is also awarded Rs.1000/- as cost of this complaint.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      It was alleged by the learned counsel for the complainant that O.Ps. were to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in Deefreezer.  Observation of learned District forum that he failed to prove this fact is wrong so impugned order be set aside and he be granted relief prayed for. 

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. It is the duty of the complainant to prove that particular article is having manufacturing defect. If the complainant discharges his onus then the other party is to rebut the same. These views are fortified by opinion of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.Sanesh & others 2015 (3) CRP 509 (NC).  In the present case complainant has not produced any evidence about manufacturing defect, so learned District forum rightly came to conclusion that O.Ps. cannot be directed to return the cost of dee-freezer and directed to repair the same free of costs. 

8.      Findings of learned Distirct Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

September 16th, 2015	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench
S.K