Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/19

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Puri - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Moudgil

03 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPER

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 19 of 03.04.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    03.10.2019

 

Sukhwinder Singh aged about 42 years, son of Sh. Mehar Singh, resident of Village Samirowal PS Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Deepak Puri son of Jai Gopal, resident of Village Nurpur Bedi, Near Rana Hospital, Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

   ...Opposite Party

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Amrik Singh, Adv. counsel for O.P. 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1. Sukhwinder Singh aged about 42 years, son of Sh. Mehar Singh, resident of Village Samirowal PS Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the material installed in the shape of Tin Shed/Buffalo Shed; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges, in the interest of justice.  

2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that that the OP is running his shop under the name and style of "Puri Bottle and General Store" Ropar road, Nurpur Bedi, District Ropar pertaining to Iron made articles as Shed tins, Grills, Girder, Iron, Pipes of all types etc. On 18.6.2018, the complainant purchased 67 pieces of shed tins along with other material and the total bill of the said shed tins was Rs.38,740/- and the purpose of purchasing the items was to raise/erect buffalo shed as he was running milk dairy in his village. He spent Rs.35,000/- for erection of the shed tins. The shed tins sold by the O.P. was of very low quality and regarding this complainant personally informed the OP but the OP promised to change the said tins.  After repeated requests, the O.P. failed to fulfill his promise and the said matter was brought into the knowledge of the officials of the manufacturing company and they visited the spot and admitted that material supplied by the O.P. was of bad quality. Hence, this complaint.

3.    On being put to the notice, the O.P. appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands and has suppressed the real and material facts from the Ld. Forum; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that the complainant has filed this complaint only to harass and humiliate the O.P. On merits, it is stated that the allegations made by the complainant against the O.P. is baseless and wrong as the O.P. is authorized dealer for selling the Everest Shed Tins and the said company is a reputed company and there is no complaint regarding the shed tins made by the Everest Company. The O.P. has sold the shed tins to the complainant in complete and there was no break in the shed tins. The complainant has checked the shed tins before its purchasing and delivery. The material which was supplied by the O.P. to the complainant was of standard quality. The O.P. never promised to change the said shed tins. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Deepak Puri Ex.R1 along with document copy of bill Ex.R2 and closed the evidence.   

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, argued thaty Sukhwinder Singh purchased 67 pices of Shed tins from the O.P. against bill dated 18.6.2018. Thereafter, he spent Rs.3500/- for its erection for buffaloes shed. He further argued that OP sold the tins of very low quality i.e. why various tins stand broken, which amounts to deficiency in service. Learned counsel also referred to the purchase receipt Ex.C1 and affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh Ex.CW1/a. In the light of the said documents, further relied upon the report of the expert Ex.C2, prayed to allow the complaint with costs.   

7.    OP counsel Sh. Amrik Singh argued that OP Deepak Puri sold the tins but the complainant did not implead the manufacturer. If the quality is low or weak then the manufacturer is directly responsible. No liability can be fixed qua the low quality of OP No.1 who is just like a seller. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, firstly on account of non impleading of the manufacturer second as no expert opinion is on the file.

8.    So far the purchase of the shed tins dated 18.6.2018 i.e. 67 pices from the OP vide receipt Ex.C1 is admitted by both the parties. So without going into detail, the forum is of the opinion that the complainant is the consumer and the complaint is maintainable, which is within limitation.

9.    Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service or not. As held in earlier part of the order the OP admitted the sale of the 67 pieces of tins and complainant erected buffaloes shed for his livelihood. Receipt Ex.C1 dated 18.6.2018 and sworn affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh is on the file. Beside this, the complainant placed on file Ex.C2 alleged expert report regarding quality of tins. Then complainant relied upon Ex.C3 to Ex.C8, which are the photographs of the said/broken /bent/dented tins along with photographs of buffaloes. OP has beside the affidavit, placed on file Ex.R2 which is dispatch challan cum tax invoice vide which OP has tried to prove that he is not the manufacturer.

10.  During the time of arguments, complainant counsel prayed to impose heavy penalty qua the defective tins. At the same time, OP counsel prayed that though there is no deficiency on the part of OP, but in the interest of justice and to keep harmony between the customer and seller he is ready to replace the few shed tins, which are either broken or dented, which may be 5/6 sheds i.e. less than 12.

11.  In the light of said prayer of both the counsel and appreciating the facts, it is held that complainant has been able to prove prima facie deficiency relating to the shed tins, which are either it requires denting or replacing.

12.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands partly allowed with the directions to the OP either to remove the shed skillfully or to replace if not repairable. At the same time, it is also directed to the OP to repair the tins carefully and if the tins are of poor conditions then replace the same.  The O.P. is further directed to comply the above said order within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

13.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.03.10.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER