DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.418 of 2006
Sri Rahul Gupta,
S/o Late Sri H.C. Gupta,
Director, Motor and General Sales Ltd.,
11, M.G. Marg, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
- M/s H.R. Jhonson (India) Ltd.,
House of Johnson,
B-67, Mandir Marg, Mahanagar,
Lucknow.
Through its Manager/Local Chief.
- M/s Agarwal and Company,
Agarwal Mansion,
15, Shivaji Marg,
Through its Manager/Proprietor/Partner.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs for directing the OPs to replace the shower enclosure system and in the alternative to pay cost of shower enclosure system of Rs.1,80,000.00 and for payment of Rs.1,80,000.00 towards damages alongwith 24% interest and cost of the complaint
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he has purchased a shower enclosure system for his personal use from the OPs for an amount of Rs.1,80,000.00. Since the day of installation of said shower enclosure system, the same was not working properly and the defects could not be removed by the persons of OPs and lastly a few months ago i.e. in between
-2-
January and February 2006, the said system became completely ineffective. The steam is not flowing from the said system. At several times, the Complainant called upon the OPs to replace the said system as it appears that the said system suffers from some inherent manufacturing defect but to no avail. At a few times the persons and people of the OPs tried to remove the defects by repairing the system but the said repairs could not make the said system good. The Complainant served a legal notice on 24.04.2006 on the OPs and the OP No.1 replied the same having so many contradictions but the OP No.2 had not replied the same till this day, hence this complaint.
The OP No.1 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the said shower enclosure system was running very smoothly and working as per desired specification. The answering OP received call from the Complainant after several months of sale regarding alleged problem thereafter persons of the OP Co. immediately attended the call of the Complainant at his place but no manufacturing defect was found by the persons of the Co. except the handling problem. After minor servicing the said shower enclosure system was running very smoothly and Complainant was satisfied fully. The Complainant just to harass the answering OP again made a false complaint that the said system was not working. Thereafter persons of the answering OP Co. immediately went to attend the call of the Complainant who was called by the local office from Mumbai to examine the alleged defect in the system but the Complainant deliberately with malafide intentions never allowed to enter any person in his premises as he knew that his false allegations and evil design will be open. The answering OP Co. had spent a lot of money to call the engineer from the Mumbai but in vain only due to Complainant. The Complainant by using his influence pressuring the answering OP Co. to refund the amount of the
-3-
sold system in the garb of alleged defects. The answering OP wrote a letter to the Complainant complaining that they did not allow to enter the engineer of the Co. to check the unit but only demanded replacement of unit. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief. The Complainant is not consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as the product was purchased for commercial purpose. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with special cost.
Notice was issued to OP No.2 but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OP No.2 vide orders passed on 29.01.2007.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 6 papers. The OP No.1 has filed the affidavit of Sri Amit Kumar Saxena, Senior Executive (Branch Accounts), H & R Johnson (India) Ltd.
Heard Counsel for the Complainant but none appeared to argue from the side of the OPs. Perused the entire record.
In this case, the Complainant had purchased a Shower Enclosure system from the OPs. The system became defective and despite repairs it could not work properly. The OP No.1 has taken the stand that the system was repaired properly but when it again became defective then the engineers were called from Mumbai but the Complainant did not allow them to enter into the premises for repairing the system with the intention of getting the replacement of the unit. So, now, it is to be seen as to whether the system when it became defective was not allowed by the Complainant to be repaired by the engineers of the OPs or the OPs could not repair the system and hence they have committed deficiency in service.
From the averments made by the OP No.1 in their WS it is borne out that the engineer of OP No.1 was restrained from entering into the premises of the Complainant for repairing the shower system whereas the Complainant had taken the stand that the system could not be repaired properly. From the
-4-
averments of OP No.1, it is clear that the Complainant’s system had become defective but it could not be repaired as the engineer was not allowed to enter the premises of the Complainant for repairing the system. Whatever be the case, it is clear that the system become defective and that it could not be repaired for one reason or the other, therefore the OPs have committed deficiency in service, therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the system repaired by the OPs free of cost. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to repair the Shower Enclosure system of the Complainant free of cost. If they are not able to repair the system free of cost then they shall replace the shower enclosure system or to pay Rs.1,80,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.
The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Rajarshi Shukla (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 23 November, 2015
