BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                Consumer Complaint no. 273 of 2020                                                                 

                                           Date of Institution:          26.10.2020

                                                Date of Decision   :     14.03.2022

Ranbir Singh Jammu son of Shri Jagir Singh Jammu, resident of Bhagat Singh Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                     ……Complainant.

                                      Versus

M/s Garg Tubewell Store, Hisaria Bazaar, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Authorized person.

                                                                                  ...…Opposite party.

  Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH.PADAM SINGH THAKUR ……………PRESIDENT

MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER      

SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………..MEMBER

Present:       Sh. A.K. Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of complainant is that on 24.10.2019 complainant had purchased a flour mill domestic from op for a sum of Rs.11,800/- vide bill No. 473 but surprisingly the bill was issued for a sum of Rs.9500/- only and op did not pay any heed to his objection in this regard and assured that in case of any defect in the flour mill, same shall be replaceable with fresh piece. That after few months of the purchase of flour mill, same stopped functioning properly. The complainant requested the op to make the same defect free and it was assured to him that their mechanic will visit his premises and will inspect the same and his grievances would be redressed but no mechanic visited to his house despite repeated requests. It is further averred that now about two days ago, on the request of complainant to replace the aforesaid flour mill or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.11,800/-, the op has flatly refused to admit his genuine claim stating that there is no policy at all to replace or refund price of the same. That this act and conduct on the part of op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony.  The complainant also got issued a legal notice upon the op on 4.9.2020 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Op was served and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, mis joinder of parties etc. On merits, it is submitted that it is wrong that complainant purchased the said product for Rs.11,800/-. In fact he purchased the product after paying the amount of Rs.9500/- and bill was delivered to him. It is also wrong that answering op has given any assurance to the complainant that if any defect arise in the product, same shall be replaced with new one. In reality, if there is any fault in the product, then the faulty part would be replaced with new one. It is further submitted that on complaint in the product, the op sent the mechanic four to five times in the house of complainant but the complainant did not allow the mechanic to enter in the house due to COVID-19 and all the times, the mechanic was returned back. Thereafter, the op requested the complainant to send the product at the shop of op but he did not agree for the same. The op is still ready to repair the product if complainant sends the same at his shop. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.

4.                Op has tendered affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar Proprietor as Ex.RW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.R1 and affidavit of Sh. Radhey Shyam Mechanic as Ex.RW2/A.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant contended that his domestic flour mill stopped functioning properly after few months of its purchase from op. The matter was reported to the op but no mechanic of the op has ever visited to the complainant despite repeated requests and prayed for replacement of the flour mill or in the alternative to refund purchase price alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op has contended that complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action as no specific date and defect has been mentioned in the complaint. More so, there is no report of any mechanic who has ever inspected the flour mill and tried to remove defect in the flour mill. When the defect was reported, the op had sent the mechanic, but the complainant did not allow him to inspect the flour mill on the pretext of COVID. Sh. Radhey Shyam Mechanic has also tendered his affidavit Ex.RW2/A in which he has also deposed that he went to the complainant for four/ five times and complainant had not allowed him to enter his house due to COVID-19 and all the times mechanic was returned back. The complainant asked him to come in the late night or early in the morning and complainant was also requested to send the flour mill to the shop for repair but complainant did not care for the same and leveled false and baseless allegations. The op is still ready to remove defect, if any in the flour mill and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. From the perusal of invoice placed on file by complainant as Ex.C2, it is evident that on 24.10.2019 complainant purchased the said flour mill from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.9500/- and bill amounting to Rs.9975/- including GST amount of Rs.475/- was issued to him by the op and two years guarantee of its motor was also given.

9.                Sh. Naresh Kumar, Proprietor of OP in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A has also reiterated contents of written statement and admitted that the flour mill was sold to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.9500/- instead of Rs.11,800/-. It is totally denied that op has ever assured the complainant to replace it with fresh piece, if any defect arises in the product. He has further stated that in reality, if there is any fault in the product, faulty product will be replaced with new one.

10.              In view of the allegations of complainant and admission on the part of op that they are ready to remove defect in the flour mill and keeping in view the depositions made in the affidavit by complainant as well as by op, the present complaint is allowed to the extent that op will get repaired the flour mill within a period of 30 days from today and in case it is found that flour mill is not repairable, then complainant will hand over the flour mill to the op and op will refund the price of Rs.9975/- i.e. invoice amount to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 26.10.2020 till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced:                   Member                Member                President

Dt. 14.03.2022.                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.