DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1641/2015
D.No._________ Dated: __________
In the matter of:
M/s GOBIND RAM KAHAN CHAND,
PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
(THROUGH SH. VINOD AGGARWAL),
B-27, LAWRENCE ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEW DELHI. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
M/s ANNAPURNA TROLLIES PVT. LTD.,
401, SHAGUN COMPLEX,
B/S. ST. XAVIERS LADIES HOSTEL,
NEAR SWASTIK CROSS ROAD,
NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-380009. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM : SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 17.12.2015
Date of decision: 02.03.2017
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 12.12.2014 complainant had placed a purchase order to supply one Electro Hydro lifting table having capacity of 2000 Kg. by e-mail to OP at an agreed price of Rs.1,73,349/- with a warranty period of 12 months and the product was supplied by the OP at the complainant’s factory address at Kundli in the 2nd week of January 2015 through road by Vishal Gujrat Carriers vide GR No-407 dated 13.01.2015. The complainant paid Rs.17,300/- as freight charges to the transporter vide its voucher no-203 dated 16.01.2015 (wrongly written in the complaint as 16.10.2015). After a few days, the machine broke down, the complainant immediately sent an e-mail to OP but no action was taken by the OP. Complainant again sent an e-mail to OP on 25.01.2015 about the defective machine and requested OP for rectification of the defects. The OP deputed one person at the place of the complainant who after inspection of the machine reported that some material parts were defective and need replacement, which were done by OP but the machine again stopped working after a week. Again e-mail dated 28.01.2015, 29.03.2015 were sent by the complainant to OP and requested for change of machine to avoid any accident in future. Again a number of times complainant made request to do the needful or to refund the price of the machine. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.04.2015 to OP which was also not replied by the OP. The complainant accordingly alleged that non-replacement of a defective machine by the OP is an act of deficiency in service by the OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for refund of a sum of Rs.1,73,340/- being the price of the defective machine, praying for Rs.17,315/- paid by complainant as frieght charges of the machine, praying for interest @ 24% on both the above amounts from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount. Complainant has also prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- towards financial losses, for harassment and inconvenience suffered by him and has also prayed for Rs.51,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Notice was issued to OP through speed post for appearance on 17.02.2016 and complainant filed proof of service of notice on OP vide which it is revealed that as per track report, OP has refused on 06.01.2016 to receive the notice. It shows that OP without any justification has refused to receive the notice issued by the Forum and therefore service has been presumed. But none for OP appeared and as such the OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.03.2016.
4. In order to prove its case the complainant filed affidavit of Sh. Vinod Aggarwal, partner of the complainant firm in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of proposal dated 03.09.2014 given by the OP for quoting the Rs.1,65,000/- as the price of machine, delivery schedule and warranty, copy of retail invoice bearing no. R-23 dated 13.01.2015 of Rs.1,73,349/- including taxes and other charges. Complainant has also placed on record copy of GR receipt no. 407 dated 13.01.2015 alongwith copy of freight charges payment voucher no. 203 dated 16.01.2015, copy of delivery challan dated 13.01.2015 and Form no. 402 issued by the OP. Complainant also placed on record copy of intimation to OP about breaking down of machine by e-mail dated 25.01.2015. Complainant has also placed on record copies of e-mails dated 28.01.2015, 24.03.2015, 29.03.2015, 30.03.2015 and copy of legal notice dated 21.04.2015.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. On perusal of the record we find that defect in the machine is a manufacturing and inherent defect which has occurred in the first month itself of its purchase i.e. within warranty period. Admittedly some parts of the machine were changed by the OP but again after a week, the machine i.e. the lift stopped working. Then complainant made so many requests to OP to change the machine but no needful was done by the OP to the requests made by the complainant.
6. During arguments Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble National Commission:
(i) 2008 NCJ 757 (NC) in case entitled View Tech Imaging Equipment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CMC Ltd. & Anr.
In the above judgment it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that if defects noticed during warranty period and not rectified, even the machine purchased for commercial purpose buyer would be consumer and entitled to relief for deficiency in service.
(ii) 2010 NCJ 598 (NC) in case entitled Wipro Limited Vs. Toppers Multimedia Ors. (P) Limited. In this judgment it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that:
Corporate entity purchasing goods for commercial purposes availing service under warranty is entitled to seek redressal under Consumer Protection Act.
7. Applying the above judgments to the present case we are of the view that even if the complainant has bought the machine for business purpose but the machine has become defective within the guarantee period then present complainant is a consumer and entitled to get relief for deficiency in service.
8. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The record and evidence lead by the complainant shows that there is a manufacturing and inherent defect in the machine as the defect could not have been rectified by the OP despite the attempt by the technical team of the OP. Accordingly the OP is held guilty of deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, the OP is directed as under:
- To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,73,349/- as the price of the machine on return of the old and defective machine by the complainant.
- To pay to the complainant Rs.17,315/- paid by the complainant as freight charges of the machine.
- To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
- To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.
10. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 2nd March, 2017.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
