ORDER                                    Dated: 09-02-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant filed this complaint on 28.01.2016 and alleged that on 17.08.2014  he had purchased a Crompton Greaves Submersible Pump set for a sum of Rs. 23,501/- from OP2 who is authorized dealer of OP1.   After installing it in the bore, the said pump did not run and thereafter on  18.08.2014 complainant reported  OP about non-functioning of the pump set.  OP told him that moving parts are somewhat tight and they had got jammed and thereafter the pump set was rectified and given back to the  complainant.  The said pump had again got jammed and thereafter it was removed on 29.09.2014 and was taken to OP3 who told him that the pump set is not working. On 08.10.2014 he again approached OP with the same complaint and OP changed the  motor  of the pump set.  On 12.10.2014 complainant again approached OP but the pump set had never functioned well and that he  was constrained to take out the pump and put it back for about 12-13 times and finally he revealed that there is a manufacturing defect in the above said pump set.  Accordingly he sent a legal notice dated 20-09-2015 to OPs but OPs  failed to give any reply or complied the demand notice.    Hence he prayed to direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2,26,000/- to him as compensation on account of  financial loss, Rs. 5500/- as cost of legal notice and Rs. 25,000- towards legal expenses.
2. In reply, OPs admitted purchase of pump set and alleged  that on complaint dated 29.09.2014 employee of  OP3 found that the pump set was okay and no defect lies in the product as evident from the job sheet which was signed by the complainant and also submitted that pump set was changed  and a new set was given to the complainant. OPs denied rest of the allegations and prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the objections made by OPs and supported his complaint.
4. In support of his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e.  Copy of  retail invoice ( Ex. CW-1/1) , copy of job card   (Ex. CW1/2) (colly) ,  copy of legal notice (Ex. CW-1/3) ,  copy of envelope (Ex. CW1/4) (colly), speed post receipt ( Ex. CW-1/5)
5.  In support of reply OPs filed affidavit of Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Attorney Holder of OP1 along with documents i.e. copy of   power of attorney (Ex. RW1/1) , descriptive document in support (Ex. RW1/2) , copy of  job sheets (Ex. RW1/3) (colly).
6.  Both the parties filed their written arguments.
7. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

1. Whether complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
3. Relief?

8. In reply, OPs did not deny purchase of the pump set  hence complainant is a consumer.
9. In reply OPs also admitted that they had repaired the pump set whenever any complaint was made by the complainant to the OPs. OPs further admitted that the pump set was changed and a new set was given to the complainant. Looking to these admitted facts by the OPs it is evident that OPs sold a defective product to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention herein that complainant purchased pump set  on 17.08.2014 for Rs. 23,501/- through invoice ( Ex. CW1/1 ). This pump was not working hence on 08.10.2014 complainant had reported OPs  through  the Authorised Service Center of OPs,  where it was changed through Job Sheet (Ex. CW1/2). Complainant had made complaints on 07.11.2014 ,26.11.2014 , 04.05.2015 and 29.07.2015  to the Authorised Service Center of OPs for non working of the pump set. These complaints are suffice to prove that complainant lodged frequent complaints regarding the improper functioning of the pump set to the OPs and above admissions by the OPs regarding change of pump set proves that the pump set purchased by the complainant was having a manufacturing defect.  
10. Looking to the above facts and circumstances we direct the manufacturer OP1 to refund the invoice amount of pump set i.e. Rs. 23,501/- , to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony as well as financial loss suffered by him and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Complainant is directed to return the purchased pump set to the OP1 after receipt of the amount.
11. This order shall be complied with by the OP1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 9% shall be payable on the entire above mentioned amount from the date of this order till realization.  Copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on this   ………..