DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 211
Instituted on: 15.05.2017
Decided on: 08.08.2017
Roshan Kumar Proprietor Aggarwal Book Depot, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
- Glacier Aqua Sales, Nankiana Road, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.
- Eureka Forbes Limited, SCO No.14, Ist Floor, Sector 7, Near Hotel Shift in Time, Chandigarh through its Chairman/ General Manager.
....Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Ms. Anjana Jindal Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1 : Shri B.S.Phumanwal, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2 : Exparte
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Roshan Kumar complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Vaccum cleaner marka Eureka Forbes model V/C Star for a consideration of Rs.7500/- from the OP no.1 vide bill no. 0064 dated 09.06.2016. The purpose of purchasing the vacuum Cleaner is to clean the powder ink of photostat machine and this purpose was specifically made known to the OP no.1. At the time of using vacuum cleaner the complainant came to know that the powder , which the vacuum cleaner sucks from the machine, was gathered in the motor instead of wiping it out for which he approached the OP no.1 who assured to replace the vacuum cleaner with a new one . After that the complainant visited the office of OP no.1 so many times but the OP no.1 did not replace the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed either to replace the product with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.7500/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from 09.06.2016 till payment,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OP No.1, legal objections on the grounds of cause of action, locus standi and maintainability have been taken up. It has been stated that there is no consumer dispute between the parties and that the complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act being he is using the said product for commercial purpose. It is denied that the OP no.1 assured the complainant that this product can clean the powder ink of photostat machine. It has been stated that OP no.1 has no service centre of OP no.1. Moreover there is no manufacturing defect in the said product.
3. Earlier OP no.2 has appeared through Shri Nitin Rana who filed reply on behalf of OP no.2 but later on none has appeared for the OP no.2 and as such Op no.2 was proceeded exparte on 03.08.2017 . In reply filed by the OP no.2, it is submitted that the OP no.2 is not the manufacturer of the product sold by the OP no.1 to the complainant. It is denied that complainant is a consumer or is using the machine for self employment. On inspection of the product it was found that the complainant has five photocopy machines and three shops and is also misusing the machine for cleaning of ink in hi five photocopy machines i.e. for commercial purposes . It is further submitted that the product sold by the OP no.1 is not a product manufactured by OP no.2 or sold by it in the absence of any privity of contract the OP no.2 has no liability in law, towards the complainant.
4. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/8 and evidence of the OP no.2 was closed by order of the Forum on 03.08.2017.
5. It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant purchased one Vacuum cleaner marka Eureka Forbes model V/C Star for a consideration of Rs.7500/- from the OP no.1 which is evident from the bill no. 0064 dated 09.06.2016 Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant case is that the said vacuum cleaner was purchased for cleaning the powder ink of photostat machine but at the time of using the vacuum cleaner the powder was gathered in the motor instead of wiping it out.
6. It is the specific case of the OPs that the complainant purchased the said product for his domestic use but he used the same for cleaning the powder ink of photostat machines which shows that the complainant used the said vacuum cleaner for commercial purposes. So, the present complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act.
7. From the perusal of the complaint and entire documents on record, we find that it is complainant's own admitted case that he used the said vacuum cleaner for cleaning the powder of the photostat machines which proves that the complainant used the said vacuum cleaner for commercial purposes. Hence, we are of the opinion that the present complaint does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
8. Further, the complainant has not produced any document on record which could show that vacuum cleaner in question was purchased by the complainant to clean the powder ink of photostat machine and this fact was made known to the OP no.1 at the time of purchasing the vacuum cleaner in question. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any expert report which proves that there is any manufacturing defect in the vacuum cleaner in question.
9. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case and as such the present complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
August 8, 2017
( Vinod Kumar Gulati ) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
BBS/-
