Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Camex Wellness Ltd vs Jayshriben C Shah on 9 June, 2022

                              Details         DD     MM        YY
                         Date of Judgment     09     06       2022
                           Date of filling    14     11       2017
                             Duration         26     06        04


                 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
               COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
                                Court-2
               APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2018

               1. Camex Wellness Ltd.
                  Camex House, Stadium-Commerce Road,
                  Navrangpura,
                  Ahmedabad-380009
               2. C-Max Wellness Ltd.
                  F6/7, Popular Estate,
                  Nr. Keshav Apartment,
                  Sarkhej,
                  Ahmedabad-382 210       ...Appellant
                                          (Ori. Opponents)
                                  Vs.

                  Jayshriben Champakbhai Shah
                  C/12, Vardhman Park-I,
                  Sahayog Class Land,
                  Vasudev Hair Saloon Street,
                  Satadhar Circle,
                  New Cosad Road,
                  Amroli, Surat.              ...Respondent
                                              (Ori. Complainant)

                 Appearance: Ld. Advocate Mr. R.U. Nahar and
                             J.T. Jain for the appellants,
                             Ld. Advocate Mr. S.G. Shah
                             For the respondent

                   Coram: Shri M. J Mehta, Judicial Member

Shri R.N. Mehta, Member Order by Shri M.J. Mehta, Judicial Member

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the DCDRC, Surat (addl) in Complaint Case No. 95 of 2016. The appellant has preferred instant B.H.Gadhavi A-18-181 Page 1 of 4 appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and bad in law.

2. The parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature for the sake of the convenience.

3. Brief facts of the present case are as under: the complainant has purchased Acupressure Bed from the Opponents, Opp. No.2 is manufacturing company, and Opp. No. 1 is distributor and authorized dealer and service agency of the acupressure bed. On 07.05.2015 the said bed was purchased for the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- the warranty period for the same was of 12 months, after some time the acupressure bed was not functioning well and was making noises, on complaint of complainant opponents sent their representative to rectify the defect and it was repaired, after some time that again the problem irrupted and complaint regarding that was made to Opponents but they did not taken care for the same.

Ultimately complainant filed the consumer complaint claiming that opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of complaint.

District Commission has allowed the complaint and ordered Opponents to pay Rs. 1,10,000/- with 8% to the complainant Rs. 2000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2000/- for the cost of the complaint.

4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Nahar has submitted before us that the appellant herin/ Ori. Opp. were not in a position to file their reply and in absence of their reply how can District Commission came to any conclusion and that's why he requested that this matter may be remanded back to District Commission for fresh trial and after giving the full-fledged opportunity to both parties the matter should be decided.

5. Ld. Advocate Mr. S.G.Shah has submitted that the complainant is a patient and that's why he has purchased this acupressure bed but since the problem is generated in bed it doesn't have full filled the purpose of purchase complainant is suffering from 2015 and if the matter is remanded back than it will take more time to decide the matter so he requested to proceed with the matter.

6. Here we heard the matter on merits and came to conclusion that if the Ori.

complainant/Respondent pay Rs. 30,000/- then Ori. Opp./appellant must gave fresh bed within 1 month to the complainant with the fresh warranty as per the norms of the company therefore, we would like to pass following order.

FINAL ORDER

i) Appeal No. 181 of 2018 is partly allowed.

ii) The judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the DCDRC, Surat(addl) in Complaint Case No. 95 of 2016 order no.2 modified as under.

iii) Hereby on payment of Rs. 30,000/- by the complainant to the appellant, Appellants/Ori. Opp. are directed to give fresh acupressure bed to the Respondent/Ori. Complainant, rest of the order is confirmed.

iv) No order as to cost here in appeal.

v) The office is hereby ordered to pay if any deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification of the appellants by Account payee cheques and the cheques be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellants after obtaining receipt.

vi) Registry is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to the parties, and send a copy this judgment to the DCDRC, Surat (addl) through E- mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.

Pronounced in the open court on 9th June,2022.

              (R.N. Mehta)                                 (M.J. Mehta)
              Member                                   Judicial Member




B.H.Gadhavi                     A-18-181                       Page 4 of 4