USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. COLONEL D C SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by M/s. Usha International Limited is directed against the order dated 6.7.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No.2054 of 1999. The said complaint was filed by the respondent Col. D. C. Sood. The facts giving arise to this appeal may briefly be narrated as under.

(2.) The respondent/complainant - Col. D. C. Sood purchased a USHA (LEXUS) Storage Water Heater Model No. WH 1025 machine No. WF 190 8 PC 1341, for the sum of Rs.3,461/- on 16.10.1999 from Canteen Stores Department of HQ Western Command, Chandimandir, Distt. Panchkula. The bill for the said purchase was numbered MSIN 00003 dated 19.10.1999. When the complainant got the said water heater installed at his house through a plumber on 20.10.1999, a minor leakage was detected from the inlet valve. The complainant Col. D. C. Sood personally went to the local service agent of the appellant - M/s. Usha International Limited at S. C. O. No.25, Sector 26, Panchkula. The complainant was not entertained there and he was directed to contact M/s. Veekay Traders, S. C. O. No.2467, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh which was located approximately at a distance of 7 kilometres from S. C. O. No.25, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The complainant, however, pursued the matter and contacted M/s. Veekay Traders on telephone on 23.10.1999 and sought to lodge the complaint regarding the said Usha storage water heater being defective due to leakage in the inlet valve. The grievance of the complainant is that M/s. Veekay Traders did not pay any heed to the complaint. On the other hand, M/s. Veekay Traders desired the defective water heater to be brought to their garage for its repairs. The complainant attempted to convince M/s. Veekay Traders that the leakage was minor and it should be repaired at the residence of the complainant where it has been installed by the plumber who had already charged a sum of Rs.100/- as installation fees. The complainant also told M/s. Veekay Traders that it would cost much more in removing the water heater from the house and to bring the same to the garage aforesaid for its repairs. M/s. Veekay Traders, however, did not attend to the complaint of the respondent Col. D. C. Sood and showed indifference towards it. Faced with such a situation, Col. D. C. Sood filed the complaint on 31.10.1999 which was addressed to the Consumer Grievances Cell, Consumer Courts, Chandigarh. Copy of the complaint was endorsed to M/s. Usha Shriram (India), 185, XV-A, Noida, (UP) and Usha International Limited, S. C. O. No.25, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

(3.) After the complaint was filed before the District Forum-II, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The notices were not received back unserved. The District Forum-II raised a presumption in favour of due service of notices on the opposite parties and since the opposite parties were absent, the proceedings were held ex parte against them. The complainant filed his affidavit in the District Forum-II and made averments in the affidavit regarding his complaint. The relevant documents regarding the purchase of water heater such as cash receipt, guarantee card-cum-owners manual were also filed. The District Forum-II believed the evidence led by the complainant and held that a defective water heater was sold to the complainant and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being the authorised agents of the manufacturer failed to rectify that defect. Resultantly, the complaint was allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/- including compensation for harassment and costs of the case. A direction was also issued to the opposite parties to take back the defective water heater and refund the amount of Rs.3,461/- paid by the complainant towards the price of the water heater along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint i. e.19.11.1999 till payment.