Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2) Heard Ms. Lakshmi Raman, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, learned APP for the State and Mr. P.B. Gole, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

4) The facts in brief are that, Respondent No.2 has filed the aforesaid case arraying M/s. Vijay Sales, Khargar Branch, Navi- Mumbai and the Petitioner as Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. It is the case of Respondent No.2 that she had purchased a Siemens 8 kg washing machine from Accused No.1 on 22nd November, 2017 for a consideration of Rs.37,200/-. At the time of purchase, the Branch Manager of Accused No.1 had assured the Respondent No.2 that delivery and installation of the washing machine alongwith demo of the same would be done at the cost of Accused No.1. Thus, Accused No.1 was duty bound to do the same for free. That, after purchase of P.H. Jayani 09 WP3752.2022.doc the washing machine, the Respondent No.2 asked the Accused No.1 for installation and to give the demo of the machine. However, every time the Sales Manager of the Accused No.1 was assuring to do the needful. The Sales Manager also forwarded two cell numbers of technicians of the Petitioner and asked the Respondent No.2's husband to contact them for installation and demo of the washing machine. In turn, the Respondent No.2's husband contacted the said technicians repeatedly but nobody turned up to do the needful. It is alleged that thus, both accused have committed the wrong by not doing the free installation and demo of the machine. It is stated that, since the delivery, the washing machine is packed, therefore, there is every possibility of rusting and consequential damage to the washing machine due to the lapse of time and for want of use. It is stated that the aforesaid approach and attitude of both accused is nothing but a cheating and deficiency in providing service. Therefore, lastly, the Respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 26 th July, 2018 and called upon the accused to do the proper installation of the machine and give its memo and if after installation the machine does not work properly, then it be replaced failing which, the Respondent No.2 would be entitled for refund of the price of the machine at the cost the accused. However, both accused did not comply with the notice. Hence, Respondent No.2 filed the said complaint case.