Haryana

Ambala

CC/95/2014

VIJAY SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.V ENGINEERS - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH KUMAR

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 95 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution         : 01.04.2014

                                                          Date of decision   : 20.01.2017

 

          Vijay Sharma son of Sh. Prem Chand resident of house No. 691/B-11,    Sharda Nagar Near Haldi Factory, Manav Chowk, Ambala City.  

 

……. Complainant.

 

          A.V. Engineer through its proprietor Mrs. Vinod, Near Manji Sahib        Gurdwara, Ambala City.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                            

 

Present:       Sh. Mukesh Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Amit Gupta, counsel for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a juicer mixer grinder from the OP in the month of August 2013 for a sum of Rs. 2000/-  which was having one year warranty but the OP never issued any bill of th3e above said JMG. Further submitted that the said JMG started giving problem from the 1^st week of its purchase and the complainant visited the shop of the OP for repairing of the above said JMG and the complainant also demanded the bill of JMC but the OP delayed the same on one pretext or the other. Further submitted that again after 2 months the above said JMG started giving problems and the complainant again visited the shop of the OP but the OP refused to repair the above said JMG and also gave the officer to the complainant to give more Rupees 400 and he will gave the new branded JMG of good quality and the complainant believe the words of the OP gave Rs. 400 more to the OP and the OP gave the new JMG to the complainant of Sumit Company but the said JMG also started giving problem after one month and the complainant again visited to the OP and the OP told that the motor of JMG is not working properly and fitted the new motor in the JMG and also charged Rs. 8500/- from the complainant. Further submitted that inspite of fitting of new motors, the problem was not corrected and the complainant showed the said JMG to another mechanic of mixi who told that the said JMG is made from sub standard quality material of mixi and the complainant also asked the OP to take back the defaulted JMG and return back his amount but the OP started giving filthy language and giving threatening of life of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant never purchased any juicer mixer and grinder from the shop of the OP in the month of August 2013 for a sum of Rs. 2000/- and OP never assured about the quality of JMG or gave one year replacement guarantee of the JMG, so, the question of fitting any motor therein by the OP or charging any amount from the complainant, does not arise at all.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered a statement to the effect that he does not want to adduce any evidence in his defence/evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant is purchased a JMG from the OP under one year warranty but at initial stage, JMG started giving problem and once, the JMG in question is replaced by OP after giving charges of Rs. 400/- by the complainant but the replaced JMG also started giving problem and again the OP demanded Rs. 850/- for repairing /fitting a new motor in the JMG. Ultimately, the complainant checked JMG in question by another mechanic of mixi who told that the said JMG is made from sub standard quality material.

                   On the other hand, counsel for the Op argued that the OP never purchased any JMG from the OP. So, the question of fitting any motor therein by the OP or charging any amount from the complainant, does not arise at all.

                   Perusal of the file shows that there is no documentary evidence in the file which shows that the complainant had purchased any JMG from the OP. We have gone through the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(I) (d) (i) which reads as under:

                   “Consumer means any person who-

(i)                “buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or party paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any use of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.

(ii)               “Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose)”

                   For the purposes of this clause, ”Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods brought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment”.

                   In the present case, the complainant neither produced any bill nor placed any documentary evidence which shows that the complainant had purchased the JMG in question from OP. In this way, the complainant failed to prove himself as a consumer and does not falls within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) Consumer Protection Act.  Thus, the present complaint devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :20.01.2017                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                   Sd/-   

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member