Punjab

Sangrur

CC/98/2018

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajnara Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Kumar Bhalla

15 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 98                                                                                           

                                                                   Instituted on:  01.03.2018                                                                                    

                                                                  Decided on:    15.06.2018

 

Amrik Singh aged about 41 years son of Jaimal Singh resident of H.No.332, Prem Basti, Street No.4, Sangrur.      

                                                …. Complainant.   

                                Versus

 

1.       Ajnara Traders, Plot No.C-91, Pole No.59, Block-C, Gali No.9, Dabri Extension, New Delhi through its Proprietor/ partner.(Given up on 30.04.2018)

2.       Omex Enterprises Machinery company, Cb-103, Ring Road Naraina Village, Near Kai Mata Mandir, New Delhi through its M.D.  

                                                                                                                                    ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Amit Kumar Bhalla, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY NO.1:    Given up                         

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY NO.2:    Exparte                        

 

 

Quorum

                            

Sarita Garg,  Presiding Member

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Amrik Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he placed an order to purchase a paper plate making machine with the salesman of OPs and paid  an amount of Rs.30,000/- to him in cash at Sangrur but  the OPs issued an invoice No.041 dated 24.11.2017 only for a sum of Rs.11800/-  to the complainant.  The complainant purchased the said machine to earn his daily livelihood.  The OPs delivered the said machine at Sangrur on 24.11.2017  through best transport. When the complainant unpacked the machine he came to know that the machine  is different from the model which  was booked/ ordered by the complainant.  After delivery of said machine the complainant requested number of times to the OPs to send engineer who will teach how to use the said machine and to correct the bill  and to issue the bill of actual amount  but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other  and they also  failed to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the paper plate making machine with the model which was selected by the complainant and to send the engineer to teach the complainant that  how to use the machine and also set right the bill with correct amount,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment.

 

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             Learned counsel for the complainant had given up  OP no.1.  None had appeared for the OP no.2 and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte on 12.04.2018.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of the documents placed on the file, we find that the complainant had purchased a  paper plate making machine from the OPs vide invoice  number 041 dated 24.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.11,800/-. The complainant has stated that he had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- but the OPs  had issued  an invoice number 041 dated 24.11.2017  only for an amount of Rs.11800/-.  The complainant has further stated that when he unpacked the said machine he came to know that said machine is of different model which was booked/ ordered by him.

5.             We have perused the invoice number 041 dated 24.11.2017 Ex.C-3 and found that the complainant purchased  paper plate making machine from the OPs for an amount of Rs.11800/-  and paid the said amount  in cash. We do not find any document on record which could show that the  complainant actually paid an amount of Rs.30000/- in cash  to the OPs So, the version of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.30000/- to the OPs is not acceptance in the absence of any documentary evidence. The complainant's specific case is that the OPs supplied different model of the said machine instead of selected/booked/ ordered model of the machine. The complainant had given up OP no.1 on 30.04.2018. The OP no.2 has not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.      

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP no.2  to replace the paper plate making  machine with the model which was selected/ ordered by the complainant and after that send  the engineer to teach the complainant that how  to use the machine.  The OP no.2 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                June 15, 2018

 

 

 

                         (Vinod Kumar Gulati )                        ( Sarita  Garg)                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Member                                     Presiding Member