Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/69/2015

Davinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Darshan Lal & Brothers - Opp.Party(s)

Jagjit Singh

27 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2015

                                                            Date of institution:  03.08.2015                      

                                                       Date of decision  :   27.06.2016

 

Davinder Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Sh. Balvir Singh, resident of village Kharouri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                      ………Complainant

Versus

Darshan Lal and Brothers, old Anaj Mandi, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its partner/proprietor/authorized person.

  …..Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                              

 

Present :      Sh. Jagjot Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                         Sh. Sumit Gupta, Adv.Cl. for the OP.

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Davinder Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Sh. Balvir Singh, resident of village Kharouri, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “OP”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   On 17.07.2015 the complainant purchased wires worth Rs.2800/- from the OP i.e 4mm aluminium wire for Rs.600/-, 6mm aluminium wire for Rs.900/- and 10mm aluminium wire for Rs.1300/-, vide invoice/bill No.441 dated 17.07.2015. The OP assured the complainant that the wires supplied can take load of each and every equipment of the house of the complainant including ACs in each room. The complainant got the electricity fitting done in his house on 19.07.2015 and the concerned electrician attached all the electrical appliances with the said fitting. After about half an hour, there was foul smell in the entire house of the complainant. The complainant switched off all the electric appliances and called the electrician, who after checking the fitting told the complainant that the appliances i.e. AC, refrigerator and LCD have been burnt/damaged due to melting of wires on account of heavy load. The complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant then visited the OP and told about the said facts and also requested for compensation for loss.  The OP firstly refused to have sold any such wires to the complainant and when the complainant showed copy of bill to him, then he stated that there might have been fault on the part of the electrician. In order to know the quality of wires the complainant then approached Shiva Electrical Works, Mandi Gobindgarh on 20.07.2015 and submitted the pieces of remaining wires for verification. On 22.07.2015, the said authority submitted its report that the wire of 10mm is actually of 5.5mm, wires of 6mm is actually of 2.85 mm and the wires of 4mm is actually of 1.6mm. Thus it is clear that the OP sold low quality wires to the complainant by mentioning the same to be of higher quality in its bill dated 17.07.2015, which amounts to gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint for directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.2,52,800/- i.e. Rs.2800/- as cost of wires + Rs.1,50,000/- as loss of electric appliances and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, pain, agony, undue and unnecessary harassment being suffered by the complainant.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OP, who filed the written reply. In reply to the complaint the OP raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form; the complaint is false, frivolous, vague, vexatious in nature and the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. As regards to the facts of the complaint, OP stated that the complainant came to the shop of the OP and demanded wires and the OP showed him all the available brands of the wires to the complainant. The complainant after consulting his electrician, purchased the wires as prescribed by his electrician. It is further stated that the complainant did not disclose the purpose for which the wires were to be used and did not seek the advice of the OP. The OP gave the wire to the complainant as demanded by him.  It is further stated that Shiva Electrical works is not authorized to check the wire and the report given by it has no value in the eyes of law, moreover, the report attached with the complaint is of Shakti Electrical works not of Shiva Electrical Works. The OP sold the wire as per size mentioned in the bill and as demanded by the complainant and all the wires are of high quality and as per size. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his complaint, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, original bill dated 17.07.2015 Ex. C-2, original report conducted by Shakti Electrical works Ex. C-3, affidavit of Sarbjit Singh Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sita Devi as Ex. OP-1, certified copy of test report Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence.

6.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the OP had supplied sub standard electrical wires and after using the same, the complainant’s appliances i.e. AC, refrigerator and LCD had been burnt/damaged due to melting of wires on account of heavy load. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant got the said wires inspected and the report of Shakit Electrical Works i.e Ex.C-3 establishes that the said wires were not of standard quality. The ld. counsel also pleaded that it is also established from the statement of Sarabjit Singh, electrician i.e Ex.C-4, that,  due to heavy load all the electrical appliances became out of order. The ld. counsel argued that it is established that the OP sold low quality wires to the complainant by mentioning the same to be of higher quality in its bill dated 17.07.2015 i.e Ex.C-2. The ld. counsel further argued that it is proved from the material placed on record that the OP had indulged in unfair trade practice by supplying sub-standard electrical wires and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the same.

7.                   On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. The ld. counsel submitted that the report i.e Ex.C-3, with regard to the electrical wires does not state anywhere that the said wires, sold by the OP, were of low quality and nor does it state as to which appliances got burnt or damaged due to the said wire. The ld. counsel pleaded that the onus to prove the case was on the complainant and the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence. He also pleaded that the OP had also got the wires tested from the authenticated lab of Government, Department of Industries & Commerce i.e Ex.OP-2(colly),and it has been held in the report that the said wires were found to be satisfactory. The ld. counsel further argued that the statement of electrician i.e Ex.C-4 cannot be relied upon as it clearly shows that the said electrician is of 20 years of age and does not possess enough experience to come to a logical conclusion. He argued that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OP. The report i.e Ex.C-3 does not state as to who has given his opinion about the wires, it only bears the name of the shop. The said report also does not state that the said wires analyzed were of standard quality or sub-standard quality nor it states as to which appliances of the complainant got burnt. In our opinion the said report i.e Ex.C-3 cannot be accepted. Secondly the statement of electrician i.e Ex.C-4 who has not deposed about his qualification and experience in the said field cannot be relied upon. It has also been deposed in the statement that the report of the “M/S.Shakti Electrical Works is crystal clear that all the cables were of very low quality due to which load could not be picked up by the same”.  With regard to the report i.e Ex.C-3 we have already expressed our opinion, thus the statement also cannot be relied upon. Thirdly the complainant has also failed to produce any cogent evidence with regard to burnt electronic appliances as pleaded in the complainant.

9.                   Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the OP has not indulged in unfair trade practice, as the complainant has hopelessly failed to prove his case. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 13.06.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.    

Pronounced                                                              

   Dated: 27.06.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)     

 President

 

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)     

                                                                                       Member