Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/87/2018

Tejinder Pal Rohilla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Janta Mechanical Works - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Manoj kumar Rohilla

28 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	87 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	07.02.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	28.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Tejinder Pal Rohilla, Prop. Kamla Traders, Shop No.203, 204, Badheri Market, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.    

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Janta Mechanical Works, 517, East Mohan Nagar, Guru Ravi Dass Marg, Amritsar, Punjab

 

2]  Harvinder Singh, F-54, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab.

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH. RAVINDER SINGH        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Manioj Kumar Rohilla, Adv. for the complainant.

           Sh.Vinod Mahajan, Adv. proy for Sh.Kushagra Mahajan, Adv. for OP No.1.

           Opposite Party NO.2 in person.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant, briefly is that the complainant is running a Printing Press Shop for earning his livelihood. It is averred that on the representations made by Opposite Party NO.2 about the good quality machine of Opposite Party NO.1, the complainant agreed to purchase ‘Fully Automatic High Speed Paper Cutting Machine’ from Opposite Party No.1 and as such paid an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 wide different mode of payment, as per the quotation. It is also averred that though the said machine was assured to be delivered on 17.10.2017, still the OPs delivered it on 20.11.2017 through transporter Baba Hemat Singh Mini Transport Company (Ann.C-4) to whom the complainant also paid Rs.2050/- as transportation charges (Ann.C-2 to C-4). It is submitted that the machine was installed by the Engineer of OPs on 21.11.2017, but it was not working properly, as such the Engineer of the OPs again visited the shop of complainant and changed the Motor of the machine.  It is also submitted that after some days of use, the complainant found that the Motor, which was installed by Engineer of the Opposite Party, was blasted inside the machine, as a result, the whole work of the complainant became standstill. It is stated that the complainant made many requests to the OPs for replacement of the machine, but the OPs did not pay any heed, as such, the complainant has to get it repaired from Local Market Engineer and has to spent Rs.20,000/- on repair.  It is stated that still the machine is not working and it is lying as a big piece of brick in the shop of complainant. It is also stated that the OPs neither gave any positive response to the request of the complainant nor refunded the cost of the machine. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that Opposite Party No.1 has no concern with Opposite Party No.2.  It is stated that the Opposite Party No.2 is neither agent nor employee of Opposite Party No.1 and therefore, Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for its acts. It is stated that the machine in question was taken by the complainant from Amritsar after thoroughly checking it. It is also denied that the motor blasted inside the machine. It is submitted that the complainant never apprised Opposite Party No.1 about any fault in the machine.  It is also submitted that the complainant himself spoiled the machine by getting it repaired from a local shop and not informing the Opposite Party No.1 that the machine supplied by it is not in working condition. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 is still ready and willing to get the machine repaired. It is pleaded that the complainant in order to unjustly enrich himself has filed the present complaint to extort the money from Opposite Party No.1.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         The Opposite Party No.2 in his affidavit has submitted that the complainant has no locus-standi to file present complaint against it. It is submitted that the OP No.2 is running his own printing press under the name & style of M/s Guru Printers, F-54, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali and has no concern, in any manner, with the complainant.  It is also submitted that the complainant is a very clever person and trying to lower down the reputation of Opposite Party No.1.  It is pleaded that the complainant is not having any Binding Certificate and is also not having any experience for using the fully automatic high speed paper cutting machine.  It is also pleaded that due to illegal act of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 suffered harassment and financial loss.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their respectively replies.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 in person and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The purchase of the ‘Fully Automatic High Speed Paper Cutting Machine’ by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 on 20.11.2017 for Rs.1,65,200/- is not in dispute. 

 

7]       It is claimed by the complainant that within short span of time from the purchase of the machine, its motor was replaced by the Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 when the machine did not perform well. It is the allegation of the complainant that even after its repair the machine in question again stopped functioning and he duly apprised the Opposite Party No.1 and Engineer of Opposite Party No.1 about the malfunctioning of the machine, but they did not pay any heed to the complaint made by the complainant.  It is also proved vide e-mail dated 1.1.2018 (Ann.C-5) that the complainant reported the fault in machine with Opposite Party No.1. 

 

8]       However, the complainant claimed that he has to engage a private mechanic to get the defect rectify, but despite of that, the machine in question is not functioning well and as such, he is claiming refund of cost of the machine in question saying that the machine in question is suffering from manufacturing defect. 

 

9]       The Opposite Party No.1 during the course of arguments as well in its reply tendered that it is still ready to do the necessary repairs in the machine making it fully functional as the machine is still under warranty period. 

 

10]      The record has been examined in the light of the arguments submitted and it is gathered that the complainant has not alleged any specific defect in the machine in question and only alleged that the same is not functioning well. Moreover, there is no expert evidence from the side of the complainant to establish any manufacturing defect in the machine, as alleged.  Since, the machine in question is still under warranty and Opposite Party NO.1 too is inclined to do the necessary repairs free of cost, so it is deemed proper to direct Opposite Party No.1 to do the necessary repairs in the machine in question, free of cost, making it fully functional.

 

11]      It is important to mention that the complainant failed to establish any dealing/transaction or hiring of service of Opposite Party No.2 by way of any documentary evidence and it clearly appears that Opposite Party No.2 has unnecessary been dragged in the present litigation by the complainant for the reasons best known to him.  For such an act, the complainant deserves to be penalized with cost, but taking a lenient view, he is only warned to be careful in future for not indulging into such act. 

 

12]      The refusal of Opposite Party No.1 that it was not apprised about the malfunctioning of the machine is highly condemnable in light of the copy of the e-mail dated 1.1.2018 requesting Opposite Party No.1 to send its engineer to do the necessary repairs.  The filing of the present complaint establishes that the complaint of the complainant was not addressed at the end of Opposite Party No.1, thus, the Opposite Party No.1 is burdened with Rs.10,000/- for rendering deficient services and to thrust litigation upon the complainant. 

 

13]      Keeping in view the facts & circumstance of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1 with direction to repair the machine in question, free of cost, making it fully functional and also to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses. 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.

 

14]      The complaint qua Opposite Party NO.2 stands dismissed.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28^th July, 2018                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                         

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                     (RAVINDER SINGH)

                                                                                   MEMBER