BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 381 of 12.06.2015.
Date of Decision: 24.02.2016.
Anchal Sood aged about 35 years C/o. Kissan Fincab (Regd.), Property No.2566-A, Mukat Asharm Street, Jagat Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Ekonkar Pump Store, Main Road, New Shivpuri, Near Street No.7, Opposite Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana.
- Ekonkar Pump Store, Street No.2, Gobind Nagar, New Shiv Puri, Ludhiana-141007.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH. S.P. GARG, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Gaganjot Singh, Advocate.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Anchal Sood, C/o. Kissan Fincab (Regd.), Property No.2566-A, Mukat Asharm Street, Jagat Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Ekonkar Pump Store, Main Road, New Shivpuri, Near Street No.7, Opposite Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana and another (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- claiming deficiency in service on the part of OPs with prayer to refund Rs.750/- to complainant, being sale amount of spare part i.e. siphon and to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant contacted OPs on 03.02.2015 through his employee Amandeep Singh for the repair of tank of toilet seat of the bathroom. Employee of the OPs represented that siphon of the tank of toilet seat is not working properly and same requires to be replaced. OPs told that it will cost Rs.750/- plus cost of component and assured that tank of toilet seat will start working after replacement of the said spare part i.e. siphon. Complainant paid Rs.750/- to OPs for fitting siphon. Labour/employee of OPs started fitting siphon, but it could not be fitted due to defective part. Complainant asked OPs to refund the amount of Rs.750/- as the siphon replaced by OPs was defective one. Neither OPs listened to the complainant nor did they return the said amount. Consequently, complainant got the tank of his toilet seat repaired from some other person. In this way OPs are alleged to be deficient in services and are involved in unfair trade practices.
3. Notice was duly served upon the OPs for making appearance before this Forum on 16.07.2015, but none appeared on behalf of OPs in spite of service and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.07.2015. Thereafter, OPs filed an application through Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Advocate for setting aside exparte order dated 16.07.2015, reply to which was obtained from the complainant. This application for setting aside exparte proceedings was dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2015 being not maintainable in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal NO.4307 of 2007 titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & others Vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & another decided on 19.08.2011 and law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Revision Petition No.20 of 2013 titled as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs Shera Singh decided on 01.07.2013.
4. Evidence was adduced by the complainant by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint along with affidavit of Sh. Amandeep Singh being his witness Ex. CA and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
5. The case was fixed for arguments. Written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant and oral arguments also heard.
6. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant contacted OPs on 03.02.2015 through his employee Amandeep Singh for the repair of tank of toilet seat of the bathroom. Employee of the OPs reported that siphon of the tank of toilet seat is not working properly and same required to be replaced. OPs told that it would cost Rs.750/- plus cost of component and assured that tank of toilet seat will start working after replacement of the said spare part i.e. siphon. Complainant paid Rs.750/- to OPs for fitting siphon. Labour/employee of OPs started fitting siphon, but it could not be fitted due to defective part. Complainant asked OPs to refund the amount of Rs.750/- as the siphon replaced by OPs was defective one.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of complainant and record on file.
8. As per Ex. C1, which is receipt, Rs.500/- paid by complainant to OPs. Ex. C2 is the legal notice issued by complainant to OPs through his counsel Sh. Gaganjot Singh, Advocate. It is evident that the complainant paid Rs.500/- to the OPs instead of Rs.750/- as alleged in the complaint, which is apparently established from Ex. C1. Rather there is no evidence that the complainant paid Rs.750/- to OPs and thereafter Rs.1000/- to other person from whom he got the tank of his toilet repaired or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops. In the absence of any defence, case being proceeded exparte and relying on exhibits and other evidence, complaint deserves acceptance.
9. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed in terms that the Ops will refund Rs.500/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Litigation costs of Rs.1000/- and compensation of Rs.1000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. Liability of OPs will be joint and several. Compliance be made within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order. Certified copy of order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(S.P. Garg) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:24.02.2016.
Gobind Ram
Additional reasons for supporting order passed by the worthy Member:-
1. I do not agree with the findings recorded in para no.8 because hand written slip Ex.C1 is there to show as if Rs.500/- paid by the complainant to OPs, but despite that repair of the toilet seat was not done and that is why the same has to be got done by the complainant from Mr.Ricky as evidenced by his affidavit EX.CW. So despite charging of Rs.500/-, due services not provided and as such, the complainant entitled for the refund of Rs.500/-. Deficiency in service is on the part of OPs to the effect that they after charging Rs.500/-, did not repair the toilet seat properly resulting in getting further renovation from Mr.Ricky. As deficiency in service is there and that is why, I concur with the view of awarding litigation and compensation of Rs.1000/- each.
(G.K.Dhir)
President.
Announced in open Forum
On 24.02.2016.
Gurpreet Sharma
