Date of Filing: 10-02-2015 Date of Final Order: 18-12-2015
The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Balai Dey being a small cultivator intending for irrigation in his land purchased a pump machine from the O.P shop. The Pump set was of 0.75 Horse Power. The said Pump set did not work properly for which the matter was informed to the O.P but no good result came out. Finding no other alternative the Complainant again purchased another Pump set of Kirloskar company bearing 1 Horse Power from the O.P with payment of Rs.6,700/- on 01/02/2015. Unfortunately, the said Pump set also started problem and the Complainant contacted with the O.P. Then the O.P send a mechanic who opined that due to low voltage the machine did not work properly. Practically, the Complainant did not able to use the said Pump in his cultivate field due to disturb in the machine. No fruitful result also not received from the end of the O.P for which this Complaint has been filed for seeking redress & relief.
The O.P, Mangalchand Laxmi Narayan, Owner, Ratan Kumar Rathi, Dinhata has contested the case denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. By filing W/V this O.P contended that the Complainant purchased 0.75 H.P Pump at first occasion with warranty period of one year. Thereafter the Complainant disclosed his intention to purchase 1 H.P by changing the previous Motor Pump of 0.75 H.P. Proper receipt also issued by the O.P. Thus, the Complainant made false allegation against the O.P.
The other contention of the O.P is that the Complainant never went to the company’s mechanic and this case is bad for non-joinder of the party as the company is the necessary party in this case. There is no defect in the machine only for mishandling and continuously supplied water by this machine beyond its capacity, the problem arises. Moreover, the Complainant was ask to produce the machine before the expert of the company at Cooch Behar, but the Complainant did not pay any heed.
Putting all this, the O.P prayed for dismissal of this case with cost as the O.P has no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant.
In the light of the contention of the both parties, the following moot points are necessarily come up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and is liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully; perused evidence on affidavit, written argument of the O.P also heard the argument by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
Evidently and admittedly, the Complainant purchased the alleged Motor Pump from the O.P against payment of certain amount. Thus, definitely the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the O.P as per provision of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The shop of the O.P is situated in Dinhata within this district. The Complainant filed this case for Rs.31,700/-. Thus, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion.
Undisputedly, the Complainant purchased two Motor Pump Sets from the O.P shop on 30/01/2015 and later on 01/02/2015. At first the Complainant purchased one Kirloskar Motor Pump of 0.75 H.P, Sl. No.14814G00083 on payment of Rs.5,500/-. Thereafter, disputes cropped up and the Complainant change the said set by purchaseing another set of 1 H.P from the O.P shop.
It is the case of the Complainant that even after purchasing the second machine his desire totally satire. It is the further case of the Complainant that the Complainant purchased first machine and when it started problem he went to the O.P shop and changed the same as there was warranty of one year. Both parties failed to adduce necessary documents for proper adjudication of the case.
The O.P in his W/V, evidence and written argument clearly stated that the Complainant replace the Motor Pump of 0.75 H.P by purchasing the new set of 1 H.P. It appears that the O.P expanded hand of co-operation to the Complainant. Besides, it also appears that the Complainant never went to the service centre with his allegation. No Job Card is available in the record. The Complainant only filed two Xerox copy of Tax Invoice, which prove that he purchased the Motor Pump from the O.P. But we did not find any document in the record that proves the deficiency in service of the O.P.
It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant in his complaint as well as in Evidence clearly stated that when disorder in the alleged machine cropped up the O.P. deputed a mechanic in his residence who repaired the defect which proved the bonafideness of the Opposite party.
It is settled principle that consumer have to prove the deficiency in service of the O.P. by cogent documents. In this case, the Complainant miserably failed to adduce cogent documents. Thus, no deficiency in service of the O.P proved.
As it is not proved that there is any deficiency in service of the O.P, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Thus, in the light of fore going discussion and the fact and circumstances of the case, we hold our considered opinion that this case has no merit at all.
Thus, the instant complaint fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/9/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order as to costs.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
