Haryana

Karnal

CC/90/2022

Hoshiar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maya Sons - Opp.Party(s)

Kanwar Preet Singh

13 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.90 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.21.02.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:13.10.2023

 

Hoshiar Singh son of Shri Santokh Singh, resident of house no.21, village Tharwa Majra, Jalmana, tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. Aadhar no.6463 8839 9549.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Maya Sons through its proprietor/Managing Partners Moti Carlo Showroom, Flavours Complex, near Randhir Cinema, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.
2. Monti Carlo Fashion Limited through its authorized signatory/Manager B-XXIX-105-106, G.T. Road, Sherpur, Ludhiana, Punjab phone no.0161-5048610.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Kanwar Preet Singh,

            counsel for the complainant.

OPs no.1 and 2 exparte (vide orders dated 10.05.2022 and 12.10.2022.

 

                     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhay, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased Pullover from the shop of the OP no.1 on 29.11.2021 amounting to Rs.2320/- and the bill of the same was paid against receipt no.3295021101980. Complainant used the item purchased and found the manufacturing defect. Complainant handed over the same to the OP no.1 on 05.12.2021 against receipt dated 05.12.2021 and the OP no.1 itself sent the same to the company for replacement being the manufacturing  defect and OP no.1 also assured that the articles will be replaced within 14 days times. Complainant again visited the shop of OP no.1 on 18.12.2021 and asked about the replacement of the pullover and on this OP no.1 again assured that within the time of another 15 days the articles would be replaced. Complainant again visited the shop of OP no.1 on 06.01.2022  where one delivery challan was handed over to him and told that the company had done this article but to the utter surprise when complainant saw the articles it was only repaired and dry cleaned, inspite of the assurance of replacing the same by OP no.1. The same was objected by the complainant and again OP no.1 told them that do not worry, the article will be replaced and they will give him a call as soon as the articles will be replaced. No call was given by the OP no.1 but complainant himself went to the shop on 18.02.2022 to collect the replaced articles but to his surprise he was handed over the same defected article which he has purchased and when the complainant talked with the owner of the shop and told about the past history of the harassment, on this the owner of the shop insulted the complainant by saying that “you do not have a capacity to wear and maintain such sought of things and you are unnecessarily making issue out of nothing as this defect cannot be removed and we will also not help you now and where ever you can seek the remedy, you are free to go”.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 10.05.2022 of the Commission.

3.             Shri Ravi Bhushan Vasishat representative of OP no.2 appeared but did not file any written version after availing three opportunities including one last opportunities. Hence, the defence of the OP no.2 was struck off, vide order dated 06.01.2023 by this Commission.

4.             On 12.10.2023 none has put into appearance on behalf of OP no.2, hence exparte proceeding initiated against OP no.2.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of GST invoice Ex.C1, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C2, copy of customer complaint form Ex.C3, copy of delivery challan Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 12.12.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased one Pullover from the shop of the OP no.1. The said pullover is having manufacturing defect, due to this complainant handed over the same to the OP no.1 for replacement but OP did not replace the pullover in question and handover the same after getting it repaired and dry cleaned.  The complainant objected the said act of the OP and on this OP no.1 assured that the article will be replaced as soon as possible but OP did not replaced the said pullover despite of repeated requests and visits on the shop of OP no.1 and on 18.02.2022 complainant visited the shop of OP no.1 to collect the replaced articles but OP no.1  handed over the same defected article and when complainant objected the same then OP no.1 insulted the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, complainant has placed on record copy of GST invoice Ex.C1, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C2, copy of customer complaint form Ex.C3 and copy of delivery challan Ex.C4. It is evident from the GST invoice/bill, complainant purchased one pullover in question from the OP no.1. It is also evident from the customer complaint form, complainant handed over the pullover to the OP no.1 on 05.12.2021 against receipt dated 05.12.2021. It is also evident from the delivery challan Ex.C4, the article was only repaired and dry cleaned and was not replaced. Inspite of replacing the articles in question, OP no.1 insulted the complainant. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebuted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.2320/- cost of the pullover alongwith compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and towards litigation expenses.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.2320/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and  towards the litigation expenses. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Complainant is also directed to handover the defective pullover in question to the OPs.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:13.10.2023              

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                       Member