Consumer panel tells sports firm to pay for defective ware

The Commission noted that when the firm had failed to replace genuine equipment in spite of his undertaking, it is not necessary to direct him to replace the defective goods. 
Representational Image. (File | PTI)
Representational Image. (File | PTI)

BENGALURU: The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Mahira Sports, a firm in JP Nagar, to pay Rs 25,000, including Rs 15,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation charges, to a consumer for selling defective basketball equipment, and also failing to replace the same, despite repeated requests for about six months. 

The Commission, comprising president CV Maragoor and members MB Seena and L Mamatha also directed the firm to refund the price of the equipment, Rs 32,900 with interest of 8 per cent per annum, from June 20, 2020, till the date of payment, to the complainant Ponnaluri Bala Murali Krishna, a resident of Marathahalli in the city.  

The Commission noted that when the firm had failed to replace genuine equipment in spite of his undertaking, it is not necessary to direct him to replace the defective goods.  On the contrary, he should repay the price of basketball equipment with interest from the date of sale. The complainant had suffered mental agony due to the defective goods. The reply given by the firm to the complainant proves that the equipment sold by him is defective, the Commission added, while ordering compensation.  

Did not offer replacement 
According to the order, the complainant on June 14, 2020, had purchased standing basketball equipment along with backboard, hoop and other accessories for his son, paying Rs 30,000 in two instalments. The firm, represented by its proprietor Javed, installed the equipment inside the complainant’s residence and charged Rs 1,500 for it. 

Later, the complainant came to know that the backboard of the equipment was defective as it failed to provide a satisfactory rebound. The firm owner tried to repair the defective backboard, but failed. Despite repeated requests, he did not replace the defective backboard, as per his promise for more than six months. Though notice was issued, the proprietor failed to put in an appearance, and the Commission proceeded ex-parte.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com