Haryana

Sonipat

301/2014

ATTAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. GOEL & SONS ,2. SHAKTI PUMP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KULBHUSHAN CHAUDHARY

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.301 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:12.11.2014

                                    Date of order:02.09.2015

 

Attar Singh resident of village Harsana Kalan, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.Goel and sons, Geeta Bhawan road, Near Batra Petrol Pump, Sonepat through its Prop.

2.Shakti Pumps Ltd., 226, 3^rd Floor, Shastri Market, Below Shastri Bridge, MG rod, Indore through its Manager.

 

           …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Kulbhushan Chaudhary, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ruhil Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. YK Verma, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased Shakti Pump 10 HP for a sum of Rs.39400/- from respondent no.1 on 26.6.2014.  But after some time of its installation, the said pump stopped its working.  The complainant made various complaints to the respondents.  But till date, the fault of the pump has not been removed and due to this complainant got removed the fault from another mechanic by spending Rs.5560.  Despite repeated requests, the respondents have not removed the fault of the pump and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their written statement separately.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that there was/is no guarantee regarding bush and burn of pump purchased by the complainant.   The complainant must have approached the customer care of manufacturing company.  The complainant has never approached the respondent no.1 for any kind of complaint in the pump.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has failed to disclose that whether the motor was not functioning due to burn or due to any other problem. The complainant had himself decided to get the pump repaired from the local mechanic and the said mechanic might have not remove the fault properly due to which the pump stopped working.  Since the complainant has got his pump repaired from the local mechanic, the respondent no.2 is not responsible for anything in case of fault of bush or in case of burn of motor.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

         In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the pump from respondent no.1 which was manufactured by respondent no.2.

         But the stand of the respondents no.1 and 2 is that there is no manufacturing defect in the motor.  Further the respondents are not liable in any manner as the complainant has got his pump repaired from the local mechanic during the warranty period and thus, the warranty become void automatically.

         But we find no force in the contentions of the respondents, because even after receiving the information on Toll Free No.1800 103 5657 from the complainant, the respondents even never bothered to check the pump and they also never visited the fields of the complainant to verify the fault of the pump.  Due to this, there was no other alternative for the complainant to get his pump repaired from the local mechanic by spending Rs.5560/- vide bill no.1030 dated 20.7.2014 issued by Om Electric Works, Sonepat.  The complainant has purchased 10 HP Shakti Pump and no man of common sense ever purchase the 10 HP Pump for his domestic use.  The complainant has purchased the said pump specifically for agricultural purposes.  So, in our view, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents that after receiving the legal notice dated 16.9.2014 from the counsel of the complainant, they must have visited the fields of the complainant to verify the fault of the pump.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that this has not been done so by the respondents and this shows the highheadedness on the part of the respondents and that also amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.39400/-(Rs.thirty nine thousands four hundred) to the complainant and further to compensate him to the tune of Rs.10,000/-(Rs.ten thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The complainant is also directed to return the Pump to the respondents which was purchased by him from respondent no.1 vide bill no.1060 dated 26.6.2014.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced : 02.09.2015