BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.336 of 2020
Date of Instt. 05.10.2020
Date of Decision: 17.02.2023
Gurmukh Singh son of S. Naranjan Singh, resident of 311- Eldeco Green, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bonetta, Shop No.3 & 4, 688-L, Model Town, Jalandhar City Through its Manager/Incharge.
2. Kaff Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. S. S. Plaza, 4th Floor, Sector 47, Gurgaon Through its Managing Director.
3. Satnam Singh son of S. Ravel Singh, H. No.1329/21, Gali No.2, Baba Budha Ji Nagar, Rama Mandi, Dakoha, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Naveen Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs No.1 & 3 exparte.
Sh. S. S. Mehmi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of OP No.2. The complainant purchased a kitchen gas chulha made KAFF i.e. the products of OP No.2 from the OP No.1 on 30.06.2017, in cash vide Invoice No.1341 dated 30.06.2017 for Rs.24,000/-. On 02.07.2020, the above purchased gas chulha was not functioning and the complainant made a complaint No.200703152 on 03.07.2020 to the OP No.1 regarding the non-functioning of the gas chulha. In response to the complaint made by the complainant, the OP deputed the OP No.3 for checking of the defect in gas chulha and on checking the OP No.3 told to the wife of the complainant that it requires service and its lightening wire is also to be replaced/changed and the wife of the complainant told the OP No.3 to do the needful so that the chulha should became in working order. The wife of the complainant paid Rs.750/- as demanded by the OP for bringing the gas chulha in order and the OP told that Rs.250/- in service charges whereas Rs.450/- is the cost of wire, but the OP No.3 have not issued any bill/cash memo of Rs.750/- received by him, inspite of demand made by the wife of the complainant. On the next day, the complainant enquired from the market that cost of wire is only Rs.170/-, whereas Satnam Singh i.e. the representative charged Rs.450/- which was totally unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 & 3. The complainant visited the OP No.1 on 06.07.2020 apprised the facts of charging Rs.470/- being the cost of wire and requested to issue a bill for Rs.470/- being the cost of lightening wire charged, but instead of issuing a bill, the OP No.1 call the OP No.3 and started making unnecessary discussion with the complainant and later on the OP No.1 issued a service report giving therein i.e. reflecting Rs.750/- being charged by Satnam Singh i.e. OP No.3, instead of issuing a bill for Rs.450/- being the cost of wire. Under compelled circumstances, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 19.08.2020 and on the receipt of legal notice, the OP No.3 visited the complainant and requested to get a refund of Rs.170/- out of Rs.720/- charges and rather in hurriedly, the OP No.3 made a substraction of Rs.170/- in the service report, but the complainant has not accepted the same, whereas the OPs No.1 & 2 have not even replied the legal notice served upon them. The complainant has suffered mental agony due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to give directions to the OP to pay the difference of wire which is Rs.300/- and to pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 and 3 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.1 & 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the answering OP No.2 , hence liable to be dismissed qua OP No.2. It is further averred that there is no privities of contract between the complainant and the OP No.2, hence liable to be dismissed qua to OP No.2. The complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.2, hence liable to be dismissed against the OP No.2. On merits, it is admitted that the OP No.1 is an authorized dealer of OP No.2 and it is also admitted that the complainant purchased a kitchen gas chulha made KAFF on 30.06.2017 for Rs.24,000/- from OP No.1, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs on the ground that he purchased the kitchen gas chulha made KAFF from OP No.1 on 30.06.2017, vide memo Ex.C-1. Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that this gas kitchen chulha was purchased by him on 30.06.2017 and as per the allegations of the complainant that on 02.07.2020, the gas chulha was not functioning properly and he made complaint. The OP No.3 came for checking and took Rs.750/- from the complainant on the ground that Rs.250/- are the service charges, whereas the cost of wire is Rs.450/-. It has been alleged by the complainant that no cash memo was issued by the OP No.1. The cost of wire is Rs.170/- only in the market, but the OP No.3 has charged much more amount from the complainant. He has sought the refund of difference of wire Rs.300/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
7. As discussed above, it is proved that vide Ex.C-1, the complainant has purchased the gas chulha on 30.06.2017 and made complaint regarding chulha not functioning properly to the OP No.3. Ex.C-2 has been filed by the complainant, which is the service report, this service report shows that Satnam Singh was deputed to serve and out of total Rs.720/-, Rs.170 was already refunded to the complainant as per Ex.C-2 and total amount to be charged was Rs.550/-. The complainant has alleged that in the market the cost of the wire was Rs.170/-, but no document has been filed by the complainant on the record that in the market, this wire was of Rs.170/-, whereas the OP has charged Rs.750/-. In para No.6, it has been alleged by the complainant that he paid Rs.750/- and the OP No.3 made subtraction of Rs.170/- out of Rs.720/-, but the complainant did not accept the same. There is no receipt on the record to show that the complainant did not accept the discount of Rs.170/- and has paid Rs.750/- to the OP. The complainant himself is not sure as to whether Rs.750/- were charged or Rs.720/- were charged as per the allegations in Para No.6 and 9 of the complaint. The complainant has also not produced on record the product to show that he purchased the wire for Rs.450/- from OP. There is nothing on the record to support the allegations of the complainant. So, there is no merits, in the complaint of the complainant and thus, the complaint is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
17.02.2023 Member Member President
