Miss RuchikaD/o Sh. Yadvender Singh Chauhan,
R/o Mohalla Amarpur, Nahan Distt. Sirmour.
M/s Vee Ess Communications,
Cooperative Bank The Mall, Nahan,
Distt. Sirmaur, H.P.
Through its Prop. Sh. Vishal Tomar
S/o Sh. Rupinder Singh Tomar.
O R D E R:
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he purchased a telephone set, i.e. Walky-FM from the OP, on, 08.05.2007, for a sale consideration of Rs.1850/-, which developed defects, inasmuch, as, FM radio was not working properly, hence, handed over the said set to the OP No.1, for repairs, who did not return the said set to him after repairs. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP No.1, filed reply to the complaint, and denied the entire allegations, leveled against it, by the complainant, hence, sought dismissal of the complaint, their being no deficiency in service on its part.
3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.
5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP No.1, having sold to him a defective instrument, on, 08.05.2007, inasmuch, as, there was a shortcoming in it, through, promised not to be existing in the warranty card. A perusal of the warranty card placed on record does reveal the fact that the instrument, as purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, promised to the customer the service of FM radio. The complainant averred, that, for rectifying the defect, he, had handed over the set to the OP No.1, yet, no, proof of his having handed over the instrument to OP No.1, for rectification of the shortcoming, has, been placed on record. Yet when, the OP No.1 has, while contending that the instrument was not handed over to it, has placed on record, an abstract from the register maintained by him disclosing the receipts of goods received by him from customers for rectification of facts/ defects.
6. Nonetheless, the OP No.1, though, in, the heading of the abstract of the register maintained by it, of goods received for rectification of defects, is, of the month of March, 2007, yet, the dates, on, which, goods have been disclosed to have been received from various customers detailed in it, commence, from, the month of July, which, is, rather, misleading, as, it has not been maintained for the month of May, 2007, nor, also, since the dates as reflected in it, as stated above commence from the month of July, 2007, which, is, not the stage, when the instrument was purportedly handed over to the OP No.1, as admittedly, it had come to be handed over to the OP No.1, in the month of May, as such, the non-adduction of an abstract of the Register, by, the OP No.1, for, the month of May, when, the OP No.1 contend, that, they, maintain, a, Register reflecting the receipts of goods by them for rectification of defects, and since, it, comprised the best evidence, its withholding results in the inference that had it, been produced, it would have falsified the stand of the OP No.1.
7. Moreover, in the light of the exercise as indulged by the OP No.1, in denying the claim of the complainant, while relying upon a misleading document, it, has, to be concluded that the complainant did hand over the instrument to the OP No.1 for rectification, hence, in its not rectifying the defect, detected in it, the OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
8. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP No.1 to replace the defective instrument, with the new one of the same, make and model, failing which the OP No.1, shall be liable to refund the cost of the instrument to the complainant, i.e., amounting to Rs.1850/-. In addition to this, the OP No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for rendering him deficient service, as also, cost of litigation quantified at Rs.500/-. This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1, within a period of forty rive days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the contesting parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.