Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 17.07.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental tension.
- Opposite party is further directed to pay the complainant as per catalog and quotation with all consequential benafits.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that after negotiation with opposite party on 02.08.2012 the opposite party supplied catalog and quotation vide annexure – 1. Thereafter the complainant, purchased the DG set after paying Rs. 3,15,000/- to opposite party no. 1 vide annexure – 2. After receiving the aforesaid set on 03.10.2012, the complainant noticed that there was defect in the DG set and thereafter he informed the opposite party about the defect in the DG set and Opposite party then sent a service engineer who found that in place of LEROY S SOMAR alternator MECALTEY ALTERNATOR have been used in the DG set which is the cause of damage of so many electronic instruments.
It is further case of the complainant that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid DG set after taking consideration money as a loan from the Bank for the purpose of running X – Ray clinic in order to earn his livelihood.
The further case of the complainant is that for redressal of his grievance he has filed several application to opposite party which has been annexed as annexure – 3 series. After some delay opposite party sent three service representatives for removing the defect of the DG set on 30.07.2013, 02.08.2013 and 03.08.2013 all the three service representative changed the spoil stools in the DG set and matched the voltage of DG set by starting but the entire defect could not be removed as will appear from their report which has been annexed as annexure – 4 series. Thereafter the complainant informed opposite party through several letters containing annexure – 5 series in which he has mentioned the details of his loss and requested him to pay the damage which comes to Rs. 7,54,800/-. The complainant has also given legal notice to opposite party for redressal of his grievance but nothing happened.
From record it appears that vakalatnama was filed on behalf of opposite party on 12.03.2015 and thereafter several opportunities were given to opposite party to file written statement. When no written statement was filed on behalf of opposite party, then vide order dated 22.09.2017 opposite party was debarred from filing written statement and this case was heard ex – parte.
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that since the date of purchase of DG set vide annexure – 1 the Dg set did not function properly as there was manufacturing defect. This fact is also clear from annexure – 4 series which is report of representatives of opposite party which clearly disclose that due to some defect law voltage was being generated by the DG set besides other malfunction of the electronic items.
The complainant has asserted the aforesaid facts on affidavit and there is no counter version of the opposite party, hence we have no option but rely on the fact stated by the complainant in complaint petition which clearly disclose deficiency on the part of opposite party.
For the discussion made above we direct the opposite party either to rectify the DG set to the satisfaction of complainant or to return the price of the aforesaid DG set i.e. Rs. 3,15,000/- ( Rs. Three lac Fifteen Thousand only ) to the complainant along with 10% interest on the aforesaid amount till its final payment within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that if the opposite party choose to refund the price of the DG set contained in annexure – 2, then the complainant will return the old DG set to the opposite party if the same is in his custody.
Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
