Punjab

Sangrur

CC/749/2022

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiv Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sushil Kumar Attri

05 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 749

 Instituted on:   19,10.2022

                                                                        Decided on:     05.08.2024

Pritam Singh aged 74 years son of Mit Singh, R/O Pindi Dhilwan, Longowal.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Shiv Kumar, MD/Manager, Sainik Audio and Visual Centre, SCF 326, First Floor, Opp. Fun Republic, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160101.

2.             GN Hearing India Pvt. Ltd. #401-406, 4^th Floor, NMS Titanium, Plot No.74, Sec-15, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai -400614.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sushil Kmar Attri, Adv.

For Opp.parties         :       Exparte.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by purchasing two hearing aid machines for both the ears from the OPs by paying an amount of Rs.40,000/- in cash  which were having guarantee upto 20.07.2023.  At the time of purchase of the said hearing aid machines, the OPs assured that if the complainant purchased the said hearing aid machine then the hearing problem of the complainant will be completely solved.  The grievance of the complainant is that after some times the machines stopped working and as such, the complainant approached the OPs for repair of the same but the OPs failed to set right the same. Even after repair of one of the hearing aid machines, it again stopped working, whereas the second machine is lying with the OPs.  It is further averred that both the hearing aid machines were having manufacturing defects and thus the complainant requested the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- being the cost of machines and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte on 14.3.2023, whereas the OP number 1 was also proceeded against exparte on 12.10.2023.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of warranty card, Ex.C-2 copy of service order, Ex.C-3 copy of frequency response, Ex.C-4 copy of bill, Ex.C-5 copy of aadhar card, Ex.C-6 affidavit and Ex.C-7 photographs and closed evidence.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the complainant alongwith his supporting documents with his valuable assistance. 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by purchasing two hearing aid machines for both the ears from the OPs by paying an amount of Rs.40,000/- in cash  which were having guarantee upto 20.07.2023, which is evident from the warranty card Ex.C-1, which shows the warranty expiry date as 20.07.2023.   At the time of purchase of the said hearing aid machines, the OPs assured that if the complainant purchased the hearing aid machines then the hearing problem of the complainant will be completely solved.  The learned counsel for complainant has further relied upon the service order dated 13.08.2021 Ex.C-2 vide which the machine in question was repaired by the OP number 1,  Ex.C-4 is again service invoice dated 16.08.2021 vide which the machines in question were repaired by the OP number 1 and all this evidence is duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-6. However, to prove the manufacturing defect the complainant has failed to place on record any expert report/opinion of any expert.  We may mention that whole of the evidence is unrebutted as the OPs chose to remain exparte. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any invoice/bill showing payment of Rs.40,000/- being the cost of two hearing aid machines, but it cannot be said that the complainant has not purchased the same from the OPs, whereas the complainant has produced on record the warranty card Ex.C-1 and service invoice Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4, which clearly shows that the said machines were purchased by the complainant from the OPs which became defective during the warranty period and the same could not be repaired upto the satisfaction of the complainant. Thus, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not repairing the said machines in question.

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to repair both the hearing aid machines of the complainant free of costs and to replace the defective parts of both the hearing aid machines with new one free of costs. However, there is no order as to compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                        Pronounced.

 

                       August 5, 2024.