BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.244 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 13.07.2021

      Date of Decision: 16.11.2022

Raju Ambedkar, aged 41 years, son of Sh. Ram Hari, resident of House NO.13, Ram Vihar, Near Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar-144009.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Enn Enn Enterprises, New Grain Market Road, Opposite H. M.        V. College, Near Market Committee Office, Jalandhar-144001        Through its Proprietor.

2.       Puneet Aggarwal, Proprietor of Enn Enn Enterprises, New Grain       Market Road, Opposite H. M.     V. College, Near Market           Committee Office, Jalandhar-144001.

3.       Aditya Polymer Industries, Opp. Vishnu Rice Mill, Dhand Road,      Kaithal, Haryana.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Darshan Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

                    Sh. Anshu Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased one Water Storage Tank having capacity 1000 Ltr of Nirmal Make from the OP No.2 for the purpose of install at his own house situated at H. NO.13, Ram Vihar, Jalandhar. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer and OP No.1 has sold the above water tank and complainant purchased it from OP No.1 from New Grain Market Road, Jalandhar vide Cash Memo-cum-Tax Invoice No.T-603 dated 31.05.2018 for Rs.6000/- issued by OP No.1. The OP No.2 is the sole proprietor of the OP No.1 i.e. Enn Enn Enterprises, Jalandhar. The OP No.1 is managed, controlled and supervised by the OP No.2 in the capacity of sole proprietor. It is stated that the OP No.3 is a manufacturer. At the time of purchasing the said water tank, the OPs assured to the complainant that the said tank having good quality, non breakable and non crackable. It is established law that warrantee and guarantee of water storage tank is about 5 to 10 years. But OPs intentionally and deliberately did not handover the warrantee/guarantee card, which is unfair trade practice. But from the document provided by the OP No.2 at the time of selling said tank in respect of Nirmal Water Storage Tank. Main features are reproduced as under:-

                   “Nirmal Watr Storage Tank”

                   “Fifth Layer: Ultra Barrier fifth layer with special polymer                  to gives lifelong durability.”

                   This fact reflects that warrantee is lifelong durability, but said tank has shown the crackage in March 2021, which shows gross negligence and deficiency of OPs. In the first week of March 2021, the complainant found that the above said water storage tank had automatically cracked/broken at various places and the water was leaking from the same. Immediately after, the complainant informed the OPs on mobile phone about said crackage and thereafter as directed by the OPs, complainant provided them the photos of the above said cracked and broken water storage tank. The OPs assured to complainant that they will resolve the matter and will replace the said tank in question. But thereafter, the OPs neither picked up phone nor replied the messages of the complainant and also not replaced the water tank in question. When the OPs failed to replace the said water storage tank to the complainant despite number of requests, the complainant issued a legal notice to replace the said water storage tank under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act dated 31.05.2021 to OPs No.1 and 2, but all in vain 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 replace the said water storage tank to the complainant or to refund the cost amount of Rs.6000/- of said tank alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant at the hands of the OPs and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 and 2 did not appear and ultimately, OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not at all maintainable as the product of Opposite Party No.3/answering respondent did not suffer from any kind of manufacturing defect nor the said product bear any kind of guarantee or warrantee, whether oral or written for any specific period. Perusal of the complaint shows that the water storage tank of 1000 ltrs. capacity was purchased by the complainant on 31.05.2018. If the product would have any manufacturing defect, it would have been occurred soon after installation of the said water tank. As per the version of the complainant the water storage tank suffered crack in March, 2021, meaning thereby there is a gap of almost 03 years between the purchase of the water tank and the alleged defect which clearly shows that the product does not suffer any manufacturing defect. It is also pertinent to mention here that since the product does not have any guarantee or warrantee, as such, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.3/ answering respondent. The Opposite Party No.3/ answering respondent cannot be held liable for deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has got no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.3/answering respondent. Even the complainant while giving the legal notice did not made the Opposite Party No.3/ answering respondent as a party to said legal notice. On merits, it is admitted that the OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the said product i.e. water storage tank, 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 as well as written arguments submitted by complainant and OP No.3 very minutely.

6.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Water Storage Tank having capacity of 1000 Ltr of Nirmal Make for Rs.6000/- from OP No.2, which is evident from Ex.C-2. At the time of purchase, the OPs gave an assurance to the complainant that the said water tank having good quality, non-breakable and non-crackable and main feature reproduced on the document which was provided by the OP No.2 to the complainant that:- “Nirmal Watr Storage Tank”. “Fifth Layer: Ultra Barrier fifth layer with special polymer to gives lifelong durability.” This fact reflects that warrantee is for lifelong durability, but said tank has shown the crackage in March 2021, which shows gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.                On the other hand, the OPs No.1 and 2 did not appear to contest the complaint and they were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 i.e. manufacture of the said product appeared and submitted that the said tank was purchased by the complainant on 31.05.2018 and if the product would have any manufacturing defect, it would have occurred soon after installation of the said water tank, but the alleged defect has occurred in March 2021, meaning thereby after a gap of almost 3 years between the purchase of the water tank and the product does not have any guarantee or warrantee. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

8.                After considering the overall facts and circumstances, it is established that the water tank was purchased on 31.05.2018 as per Ex.C-2. It is proved that the cracks appeared in the water tank as per photographs Ex.C-4. It is established that defect has occurred in water tank after 03 years of purchase and this fact has been admitted by the OP No.3 also. It is clearly mentioned in document Ex.C-3, which was provided by the OP to the complainant that “Fifth Layer: Ultra Barrier fifth layer with special polymer to gives lifelong durability”, meaning thereby that the product has life time warrantee/guarantee, but the defect has occurred after 3 years of purchase. Therefore, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and all the OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the water storage tank i.e. Rs.6000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 31.05.2018. Further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              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     

16.11.2022         Member                          Member              President