STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.347 of 2015
Date of Institution: 16.04.2015
Date of Decision: 05.05.2015
Sunshine Industries, Hissar Road,Rohtak through its partner Sh.K.L.Malhotra.
…..Appellant
Versus
- Abbott Air Systems, 49-50 mile stone, Mathura Road, Village Prithla, District Faridabad through its Managing Director.
- Mr. Raman, Managing Director, Abbott Air Systems, 49-50 mile stone, Mathura Road, Village Prithla, District Faridabad.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present:- Mrs.Anjali Bansal proxy counsel for Mr.Deepak Girotra, Advocate counsel for the appellant.
O R D E R
R.K.BISHNOI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Complainant alleged that “Fume Exhaust System” was purchased from O.Ps. for sum of Rs.Five lacs on 27.04.2010, but, they deputed team after 15 days for installation. Even thereafter the system was not installed properly and was not working effectively. Engineers of O.Ps. visited the site and made some modifications in the system, but, there was no improvement. It got the system checked from Man Envi ro Care Research Center and it was reported that there was some technical defect in the system. They requested O.Ps. to remove the same or to refund the amount, but, to no avail.
3. O.Ps. controverted their averments and alleged that when the platform was made ready by the complainant the system was installed. After installation it was checked four to six hours and when the complainant was satisfied, it’s engineers came back. Complainant paid balance amount of Rs.49,957/- after satisfaction. There was no fault with the system and averments raised by the complainant were altogether wrong.
4. After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short “District Forum”) vide impugned order dated 20.02.2015 dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant has miserably failed to show that there was any technical defect in the system.
5. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the complainant has preferred this appeal.
6. Arguments heard. File perused.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant that system was not functioning properly since very beginning and required repair time and again, it shows that there was some manufacturing defect. Even otherwise it was reported by Man Envi ro Care Research Center that there was some technical defect. Learned District Forum wrongly ignored this report and dismissed the complaint. He placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Indochem Electronic & Anr. Vs. Additional Collector of Customs, A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 721.
8. These arguments are of no avail. Complainant has miserably failed to shows that there was any defect in the system and was repaired by O.Ps. time and again. On the basis of its’ averments this fact cannot be deemed to be true. Man Envi ro Care Research Center nowhere opined that there was some manufacturing defect in the system. They have only suggested modification as per request of the complainant. It was bouden duty of the complainant to show that there was some manufacturing defect in the system as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Rajiv Gulati Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. & Ors. III (2013) CPJ 273 (NC) and Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr 1 (2010) CPJ 235 (NC). The complainant-appellant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because in that case the machine was mal-functioning since very beginning whereas in the present case mal-functioning at any stage is not proved.
9. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
May 05th, , 2015 | Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench | | R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member Addl.Bench |
S.K.
