O R D E R :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )
Complainant Shri Jagroop Chand Dogra being Manager of State Bank of India, Hamirpur, on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the water cooler with new one of the same capacity or to refund its price and to pay compensation of rupees 10 Lac along with cost on the grounds that he purchased one water cooler with stand from the opposite party No.1 for Rupees 33,665/- to provide cold and pure water facility to the customers of the said bank and general public after taking approval of regional office Mandi dated 26-07-2010, but the said cooler did not work properly and was defective, upon which the opposite parties repaired the same on 15-11-2010 on receipt of Rupees 2750/- illegally within the period of warranty i.e. within six months from the date of sale. The water cooler again did not work hence it was again repaired by the opposite party No.1 on 23-03-2011 for which an amount of Rupees 3312/- was received and thereby the complainant spent a total amount of Rupees 39,827/- on the water cooler, but the same is defective and the opposite parties failed to repair or replace the same which amounts to deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party No.1 disputed the said claim and has set up the defence that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, the water cooler is being used for commercial purpose and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and the opposite party No.1 is not a water cooler mechanic and such service is provided by the manufacturer of the items and warranty also given by the manufacturer of the product, hence the opposite party No.1 is not responsible being a dealer, hence the complaint is not maintainable against it.
3. The opposite parties are exparte.
4. There is no dispute that the opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of the ‘WATECH Water Cooler (SS)’ , whereas, the opposite party No.1 is its dealer and the opposite party No.2 is the service station. The complainant Jagroop Chand Dogra being Manager of State Bank of India intended to purchase the water cooler , hence he called quotations from various agencies Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3. The opposite party No.1 offered to sell the water cooler in question for Rupees 33,665/-. Being lowest quotation of the water cooler, the complainant opted to purchase the same from the opposite party No.1 The complainant obtained sanction from the Regional office of the bank through letter Annexure C-4 and the same was purchased from the opposite party No.1 vide bill Annexure C-5 on 28-01-2010. The water cooler in question was got repaired from opposite party No.2 through cash memo Annexure C-6 and thereafter on 23-03-2011 vide cash memo Annexure C-8.
4. The documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 do not prove in any manner any manufacturing defect in the water cooler in question. The complainant has not even produced in evidence his affidavit, as a result of which the averments made in the complaint are not supported by any evidence. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be concluded or inferred that the water cooler in question is having any manufacturing defect or defect which could not be removed or repaired by the opposite parties. In absence of any evidence on record to conclude that the opposite party has failed to repair the water cooler in question or the same is having any manufacturing defect neither order for its repair nor replacement can be passed.
5. The opposite party No.1 has also taken up the defence that water cooler in question is being used for commercial purpose by the opposite parties. Undoubtedly, the water cooler has been purchased by the complainant for State Bank of Patiala in order to provide cool and pure water facility to the customers of the bank and general public, as a result of which it has to be concluded that the water cooler has been purchased for commercial purpose hence the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and as such the complaint is also not maintainable on this score.
6. Not to say only this, the complaint has also not been filed by the ‘ State Bank of Patiala’, but the same has been filed by Jagroop Chand Dogra, in his personal capacity and as such it is not again maintainable.
7. In view of the findings recorded above, the Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is bound to fail.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT
ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015
(B.R. Chandel )
President
(Th. Digvijay Singh) ( Sushma Sharma)
Member Member
