Complainant Narinder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to replace the Atta Chakki and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service for causing unnecessary harassment, mental tension and cost of litigation, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 20.10.2016 complainant purchased one atta chakki from opposite party for a total price of Rs.78,000/- vide invoice no.2523m/MG/16-17 but in the said invoice the opposite party willfully filled the amount of Rs.53,025/- and delivered the Atta Chakki through Truck belongs to Guru Nanak Transport Company for an additional amount of Rs.4,000/- over the abovesaid price. Complainant had purchased Atta Chakki to earn his livelihood for himself and his family by way of self-employment as the complainant is jobless and has no other source of income. That at the time of selling the Atta Chakki the opposite party had given one year warranty for the same from the date of its purchase and opposite party had also assured that Atta Chakki will prepare 1.5 to 2 Quintal flour/Atta per hour. But Atta Chakki was preparing only 80 to 90 kg. per hour. Complainant approached the opposite party to repair the Atta Chakki as the same was not giving 1.5 to 2 quintal per hour. Opposite party asked the complainant to send the Atta Chakki to his company which complainant complied and the same was delivered back to complainant on 22.12.2016, but Atta Chakki was not working properly and bearings were getting damaged frequently. When complainant again approached the opposite party for rectification of defect of Atta Chakki, but was not giving proper service. Opposite party sent some parts for replacement of the Atta Chakki through a bus, but Atta Chakki did not function properly and would not prepare 1.5 to 2 quintal per hour. Due to mal functioning of the Atta Chakki complainant has suffered loss and is feeling harassed by opposite party and is not able to earn his livelihood. The conduct of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. A legal notice dated 22.4.2017 was also served, but did not receive any reply. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite party had been served but none had come present on its behalf. Case called several times, but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party. Hence, opposite party was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order 15.11.2017. Further on 18.12.2017 counsel for opposite party moved an application for join the proceeding and the same was allowed in the interest of justice
4. Ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Dhiman Ex.CW-2/A and affidavit of Sh.Sarwan Singh Ex.CW-3/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 and closed the evidence.
5. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Munish Goel Ex.OP-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the opposite parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsel for the opposite parties and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. Complainant Sh.Narinder Singh had purchased one Atta Chakki from M.G.Industries, Batala opposite party in the present case for Rs.53,025/- as per bill placed at Ex.C-2 on 20.10.2016 to earn his livelihood. Complainant on running the Atta Chakki found that the same was not giving the required quantity of Flour/Atta, whereas complainant had assured of 1.5 to 2 quintal but output of Atta Chakki but it was only 80 to 90 kgs per hour. Complainant approached opposite party to repair the same and for that purpose Atta Chakki was sent to opposite party's factory at Batala and the same was delivered back to complainant after repair. On 22.12.2016 but even after repair Atta Chakki was not functioning properly and there were frequent break downs/bearings damages and was also giving less output of flour/atta. Complainant has produced on record affidavit of Ashwani Kumar Dhiman son of Sh.Amar Chand Ex.CW-2/A wherein Ashwani Kumar Dhiman under oath has declared that the said Atta Chakki is not working properly and there are frequent breakdown. Another affidavit of Sh.Sarwan Singh son of Harchand Singh Ex.CW-3/A has also been placed to support the version of complainant regarding frequent breakout and not giving proper output of wheat flour/Atta by their defective Atta Chakki.
8. Opposite party on its part did not respond to the notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.11.2017. Further on 18.12.2017 counsel for opposite party moved an application for join the proceeding and the same was allowed in the interest of justice.
9. Opposite party on its part has submitted his affidavit wherein he admits to having sold the Atta Chakki to Sh.Narinder Singh vide bill placed at Ex.C-2 on 20.10.2016 and had assured that this Atta Chakki will prepare flour/Atta @ 1.5 to 2 quintal per hour if power @ 15 HP/20 HP is given to the Atta Chakki. Opposite party admits to have repaired the Atta Chakki on site on two occasions and also admits that Atta Chakki bearings were breaking down as stated by the complainant at his installation, but there is no manufacturing defect. Further opposite party has stated that complainant was advised to give proper supply of 15 HP or 20 HP to the Atta Chakki for its proper working which the complainant is not complying with.
10. From the abovesaid facts, it is deduced that complainant Narinder Singh son of Santokh Singh purchased one Atta chakki from M.G.Industries, Batala, Opposite party in the present case, for earning his livelihood by paying a sum of Rs.53,025/- Ex.C-2. Ever since its installation, the Atta chakki was not functioning properly as there was frequent breakdown and also the Flour output was only 80 to 90 quintal per hour against assured output of 1.5 to 2 quintal per hour. Complainant had sent atta Chakki to opposite party for repair on his own cost, through transport, for, to get it repaired. But even after repair the problems persisted. Opposite party on its part deputed his engineer twice to rectify the same and also sent some spare parts through bus to get the Atta Chakki in order but the problem persists and complainant has not been able to get the desired output from the same and has bought another Atta Chakki to earn his livelihood and this defective Atta Chakki is not being used by complainant due to the problems mentioned above.
11. In view of above said facts and discussion, it is clear that the Atta Chakki in question is suffering from some defects which need to be removed so that the same can be utilized by the complainant for to earn his livelihood. The complaint is disposed of with the directions to the opposite party that to deliver a defect free Atta Chakki of the capacity as assured by him to the complainant at his own costs. Opposite party is at liberty to take back the defective Atta Chakki. Opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (R.S.Sukhija)
October 13, 2022 Member
*MK*
