Back
biFOnE THE ST.TE COvsUiii DISJT ES iiiESiL
CQMIS3ILN, ORIsS1, UTTACK.
Fdsh Appeal o. of 2009
rising out of C.C.Case No.106 of 2008
of D.C.D, R. F., Sundargarh
-
I).
CRESSAL
he mat ter of
An application u/s 15 of the Con-
F'LED o v
09 SPTESsD
sumer Protection Act, 1936;
71SwORISsCUTEAc
3 0
MAR
2009 AND
In the matter of :
(1) Man a 9er,
Reebak, Jas Apparels
Footwear Pvt. Ltd.,
R.G.H. Road, Rourkela,
Dist.- Sundargarh.
(2) Man ager,
Reebak, Jas Apparels &
Footwear Pvt. Ltdo,
ll, Janpath, bapuji Nagar,
Bhuban eswar -
751009, Dist.- Khurda.
ppalents
(0.Ps.in Lower Forum)
Vrs.
Dr. Dalvinder Singhshan gua ,
Ag ed abut 5
years
s/o Piyara Singhihangu, Ati-
Rajgangpur Town, .S.:iajgangnur,
Dist,- Sundargarh, Oris sa .
iespon ient
(Complainant in Lower Forum)
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
F.A.No.288/2009
23 22
Heard learned counsel or the appellant.
None appears on behalf of the Respondent.
2. This is an appea! filed u/s 15 of the
erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter
called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred
to with reference to their respective status before the
pistrict Forum.
3. The unfolded story of |the case of the
complainant
is that the complaihant purchased a
tread mill from 0.P No.1 on payment of Rs.37,500/-
on 01.03.2008 for his personal use.
It is alleged
interalia that the tread mil! clid not work well and
started problem from the first daylof its use. So the
complainant took the
same to the O.P
for
rectification of the defect in the nmachine or to
replace the entire tread mill but the O.P did ot do
0. So the complaint was fiied.
4. The 0.P filed written version stating that
the coinplainant's case is bad for non-joinder of
SI. No
of Orier
Date of
Order
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
necessary parties. It is also statedjthat the tread mit-
did not work due to voltage problem. So there is no
manufacturing defect at all.
5. After hearing both the parties, the learned
Dist. Forum passed the following ofder;
Xxx
XXX
XXX
Thus under the. circumstances we direct the
0.P No.1& 2 to repair the Tread Mill machine of the
complainant removing all the defective parts with
new and defect free parts to the satisfaction of the
complainant. The.O:ps are further directed to pay
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees
ten
thousand)
only
as
compensation
for harassment
and
Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees twenty thousand) only as litigation cost
within 30 days from the date of teceipt of this order.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
_Xxx
XXX
XXX
OGP-MP-CTCP (FS8CW) 2-1.00.000-29-6-2020
Office note as to action (if any)
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
6. Learned counsel
for
the
appellant
submitted that learned Dist, Forum ought not to
have directed for payment of compensation and
cost when the O.P Company s ready to take care of
the defective machine complained before them.
According to him there is nd expert opinion about
the defect in the Tread Mili machine. Due to voltage
problem, sometimes the tread mill does not
function.
Learned Dist. Forum ought to have
considered while passing the þrder of compensation
and cost. Therefore he submitted to set aside the
impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the suimissions of respective
7. parties, perused the D.F.R and| impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact|that the complainant
8. has purchasedthe tread milI. It is alleged by the
SI. No
of Orier
Office note as to action (if any)
taken on Order
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
Order
complainant that from the day one the tread mill did
not work as per efficiency. It is also not in dispute
that the defects were to be removed by the O.P.
The impugned order itself shows that the learned
Dist. Forum has directed to remove the defect in the
tread mill. There
