BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 319 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 05.12.2017.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2019.
Puran Lal (aged about 35 years) son of Sh.Des Raj, resident of village Kotli, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Ahuja Electronics, Near Cooperative Bank, Main Bazaar, Suchan Mandi, District Sirsa through its proprietor.
- Microtek International Pvt. Ltd. H-57, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi through its authorized person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI R.L.AHUJA……………… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER
Present: Sh.Lucky Duggal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for Op No.1
Sh.Balkar Singh, representative on behalf of Op No.2.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are, as under:
On 10.04.2016, the complainant had purchased an Inverter Model Microtek UPSEB 1600 from Op no.1 vide bill No.007 and the Op had charged Rs.5800/- as cost of the said inverter. The complainant had also purchased a battery from Op No.1, who had charged Rs.15000/- from the complainant for the said battery. The Op No.1 had assured that the products of Microtek company are of good quality and had given one year guarantee/warrantee on the purchased articles. After the purchase of the said product, the complainant got installed the same in his premises but the same stopped working. He immediately contacted the Op no.1 and brought this fact to his knowledge. On this, mechanic of Op No.1 visited the premises of the complainant and made minor repairs by saying that no such problem would occur in future but despite that there exists the same problem. He again contacted Op No.1 and requested to get the needful done but Op No.1 removed the said product alongwith the battery from the premises of the complainant with assurance to install fresh piece but after passing one month, he had not installed the fresh piece. The complainant again requested the Op No.1 either to replace the product or in the alternate to refund the cost of the product but it refused to do so. The product in question is still under the period of guarantee/warrantee. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but to no avail. This way, the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, only OP No.1 has appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, neither the complaint is maintainable nor the complainant has cause of action to file the complaint etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that on 10.04.2016 the complainant had desired to purchase an inverter model Microtek UPSEB 1600 worth Rs.5800/- alongwith battery worth Rs.15,000/- but he had shown his inability to make the payment of the products in question and requested to give the same on credit basis with promise to make the payment within a short period. On this, after accepting the request of the complainant, the Op gave said products to the complainant on credit basis. It has been further submitted that the complainant did not make the payment of the products in question even after lapsing of long period. Lastly, the complainant returned the said inverter and battery to the replying Op due to non-payment of the aforesaid amount with assurance to bear the loss suffered by it. The value of the old inverter and battery was Rs.10,000/- therefore, a sum of Rs.10,800/- being remaining amount was to be paid by the complainant. The replying Op had requested the complainant many a times to make pay the remaining amount but he flatly refused to do so. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as he has made an unfair, illegal and intentional fraudulent attempt to mislead this Forum. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of battery manufacturer. It is well known fact that power back up system consists of two parts i.e. battery and inverter/UPS-EB. The complainant has never contacted replying op either through customer care or through any other mode. The complaint is between the complainant and Op No.1 and the replying op has no role to play in the same. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased an Inverter Microtek UPSEB 1600 for a sum of Rs.58,00/- alognwith a battery for a sum of Rs.15,000/- from Op No.1, but however, the Op No.1 had issued a bill No.007 dated 10.04.2016, for inverter only, in the name of the complainant. The Op No.1 had given one year guarantee/warrantee on the products in question, but however, after sometime, there was a defect in the product, as a result of which, the Op No.1 was requested to make the same defect free or in the alternate to replace the same. The complainant had handeover the inverter and battery to the Op No.1 and this fact has been admitted by the Op No.1 in its written statement.
6. The bone of contention between the parties is that as per the allegations of the complainant that there was a defect in the inverter and the same was not working properly and as a result of which, he had handeover the inverter and battery to the Op No.1 to make it defect free and in working condition. On the other hand, there is a specific plea of the Op No.1 that the complainant had taken the inverter and battery on credit and a sum of Rs.20,800/- is outstanding till date against the complainant. The complainant had handedover the inverter and battery to Op No.1 due to non-payment of aforesaid amount and after depreciation, the value of the inverter and battery was Rs.10,000/- but the remaining amount has not been paid by the complainant.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments of the complaint. In support of his case, he has also placed on file copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2 and its postal receipt Ex.C3. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Surender Pal Singh as Ex.RW1/B whereas, the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Balkar Singh Ex.RW1/A.
8. From the evidence of the complainant as well as evidence of OP No.1 it is clear that there is nothing on record that the inverter/battery was purchased by the complainant on credit basis, rather it appears from the bill Ex.C1 that the complainant had purchased the inverter for a valid consideration. The perusal of the legal notice Ex.C2, which was sent by the complainant, through his counsel Sh.M.R.Kohli, Advocate, Sirsa, calling upon the OP No.1 either to replace the aforesaid product or in the alternate to make refund of the amount, but the OP No.1 did not give any reply to the legal notice of the complainant, so, it appears from the evidence of the complainant that the complainant has proved his allegations against the Op No.1.
9. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to handover the inverter to the complainant after making the same defect free, without any costs, or in the alternate to replace the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Op No.1 is further directed to handover the battery of the complainant which is lying with Op No.1. We also direct the Op No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 27.03.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF,Sirsa
