Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/14/2015

Geetinder kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Powerol Business - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rajmat Singh

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.14 of 2015

                                                        Date of institution:  06.02.2015

                                                                Date of decision   :  23.11.2015

Geetinder Kaur W/o Randeep Singh son of Sh. Rajmat Singh resident of Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Mahindra Powerol Business, Powerol building, Gate No.2 Akurli road, Kandivali(E), Mumbai: 400101, through its authorized signatory.
2. Perfect Power Industries Chak Sakta, NH-1-A District Kathua(J& K) through its authorized signatory.
3. Raj Power Solution 19B Focal Point Patiala, District Patiala, through its authorized signatory.
4. Sh. Karamjit Singh Mechanic C/o Raj Power solution 19-B, Focal Point Patiala, District Patiala.

…..Opposite parties

       

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Quorum

          Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                

       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :    Sh. Rajmat Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

               OPs No.1, 3 and 4 exparte.       

                OP No.2 deleted. 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainant, Geetinder Kaur W/o Randeep Singh son of Sh. Rajmat Singh resident of Bassi Pathana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased a Generator from OP No.3, for earning her livelihood. OPs No.1 and 2 are the manufacturers and OP No.3 is authorized dealer. The generator started giving trouble as there was manufacturing defect in it. Firstly on 16.11.2013 the battery of the said generator became dead, which was changed by OP No.3 on payment but OP No.3 did not issue the receipt despite request. The battery was in warranty period but OP No.3 charged the price of the battery. Thereafter charger became defective on 10.03.2014, which was also changed by OP No.3 on payment of Rs.3,000/- as cost of charger. The charger was also within warranty period. Thereafter, in the month of November 2014, the said charger again became defective and the complainant reported the matter to OP No.3, who sent his mechanic namely; Karamjit Singh, OP No.4, who told the complainant that the charger again became defective. The complainant asked OP No.3 to change the charger as the same was under warranty period but it refused to change the charger free of costs. Thereafter, the complainant got changed the said charger by making the payment. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/-, which was charged for replacing the battery and charger, and to replace the defective charger free of costs and further to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony, humiliation and unwanted litigation.

3.                Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs. In view of the statement of Ld. counsel for the complainant OP No.2 was deleted being unnecessary party. OP No.3 appeared through Sh. R.K. Dhiman, Adv. but he failed to file the written version despite many opportunities and thereafter failed to turn up before this Forum to contest the complaint. Hence, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte. OPs No.1 and 4 also choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence they were also proceeded against exparte.

4.                In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. C-6, true copies of engine test certificate Ex. C-1, warranty certificate Ex. C-2, battery replacement documents Ex. C-3, Service job card Ex. C-4, battery charges bill Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.

5.               The ld. counsel has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complaint is that the complainant was charged for replacement of defective part in Generator Set within warranty period. He pleaded that on 16.11.2013 the battery of the said generator became dead, which was changed by OP No.3 on payment but OP No.3 did not issue the receipt despite repeated requests made by the complainant. Thus the OP no.3 has committed deficiency of service by not issuing the payment slip and thereafter charged for the Battery being in warranty period.The ld. counsel relied on the case law titled as Meera & Co.LTD Vs. Chinar Syntex Ltd,2004 CPJ 24 (NC), wherein it has been observed in para no.3;

 “Mr. Rahul Gupta for petitioner in support of revision, pressed the grounds which the petitioner had taken in written version. Petitioner does not dispute purchase of generating set from it by the respondent on 14.02.1994; warranty of one year having been given to the respondent; generating set having developed defects for rectification whereof amount of Rs.41,500.45 was charged, within warranty period. Since the generating set was sold by the petitioner, it cannot evade liability for repairs/replacement of spare parts on the ground of manufacturer of the generating set with whom the respondent did not have any privity of contract, having not been impleaded as party to the complaint or service was to be affected by New Krishi Sewak. Further, respondent will be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even if the generating set was sold for commercial purpose to the respondent as the defects therein developed within warranty period of one year. If any authority is needed on that settled position in law, reference may be made to the decision in Amtrex Ambience Ltd. V. M/s. Alpha Radios & Anr., I(1996) CPJ 324 (NC). There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by For a below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the said Act. Accordingly, revision is dismissed.”

6.                We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have thoroughly gone through the evidence, written arguments and the oral submissions. In our view the Generator set was purchased and warranty certificate was issued on 16.12.2012 i.e Ex.C2, it is clearly stated in the warranty that “The Genset will be replaced free of cost if it goes out of order due to inherent manufacturing defect”. The complainant has sworn an affidavit i.e Ex.C 6 whereby she has deposed that despite getting the said Genset repaired within the warranty period OP no.3 had charged her for replacing the defective part and refused to issue any receipt of the payment made. It has come to our notice that in warranty certificate i.e Ex.C-2 the period of the manufacturing defect is left blank, therefore the presumption is drawn in favour of the complainant. It is well established from Ex.C5 that the complainant was charged second time also for the replacement of the defective part. In our view the OP no.3 has committed deficiency of services by charging the complainant for replacement of defective part, while it was under warranty period and for not issuing any receipt against the payment received.

7.                Accordingly in, view of the aforementioned discussions and the judgment cited in the case of Meera & Co.LTD Vs. Chinar Syntex Ltd,2004(Supra) by the ld. counsel for the complainant, we find force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. To levy charges for repair/replacement of parts during period of warranty is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence we direct the OP no.3 to refund a sum of Rs. 6000/- which was charged for replacement of defective parts within the warranty period. The complainant is also held entitled for compensation on account of unfair trade practice, mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 8000/-. The OP no.3 is directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order. In case OP fails to comply the same within the stipulated period, the OP shall be liable to pay 9% interest per annum on the aforesaid awarded amount. The present complaint stands partly accepted.

8.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on ­­­­­­­­­­06.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                              

         Dated.23.11.2015                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)    

                                                                                         President

 

(A.B. Aggarwal)     

       Member