Haryana

StateCommission

A/429/2015

NAGMAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROTEK INTERNATIONAL - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.429 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 01.05 2015

Date of Decision: 19.07.2016

 

Nagar Mal Lakhera son of late Sh.Shiv Naraian Lakhera # 342 Shiv Colony, Gali No.2, Bhudpur Road-Rewari (Haryana).

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Managing Director Microtek International Private Limited H-57, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041.

2.      Parmod Kumar  M/s  Parmod Electronics Sarai Balbadhra Arya Samaj Road, Rewari-123401 (Haryana).

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Appellant in person.

                    Mr.Sikender Bakshi, proxy counsel for Mr.M.K.Sood,                          Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 in person.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

                   It was alleged by the complainant that on 28.04.2010 he purchased on microtek inverter and tubular battery of universal company from Opposite Party (O.P.)/respondent No.2 against the payment of Rs.14,000/- with the warranty of two years. Just after some days of purchase, battery and inverter stopped working and he brought this matter to the notice of O.P.No.2. He assured to get them replaced from the company, but, did not get them replaced. On 03.09.2010, when he was going to check water of battery poisonous gas was emitted which effected his eyes and he went to Eye-Q Hospital  at Rewari. On 15.09.2010, O.Ps took inverter and battery from his house with promise to supply new one. He remained without battery and inverter for about six/seven months.  On 25.03.2011 O.P.No.2 gave inverter of ordinary company Zoom   800 V and Bass Make battery of Remko company. He asked him to use them for some days and thereafter he would replace them, but, did not keep the promise.  On 27.04.2012 legal notice was served upon him, but, he did not bother to reply them. He be directed to supply new inverter of Microtek company 1000 Watt and tubular better of universal.

2.                          Both the respondents filed separate replies controverting his claim. It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that there was no problem with the inverter. It was not responsible for any fault, if any, in battery because the same was product of some other company and the complainant never contacted it about any type of problem with inverter. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                         O.P.No.2 alleged that complainant purchased aforesaid items for Rs.14,000/- but paid only Rs.9,000/-. He promised to pay remaining amount lateron. He again purchased from him one other inverter and battery valuing Rs.12,000/- with promise to repay the entire amount of Rs.17,000/- in installments.  When he asked him time and again to make the payment he threatened with filing of complaint.  His averments about checking water were altogether wrong.  He came to his shop and told that when he was checking battery with candle light battery immediately burst. The incident took place due to negligence of complainant and not due to manufacturing defect. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (in short, District Forum) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 27.03.2015.

4.                         Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the complainant/ appellant has preferred this appeal. 

5.                         Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.                         Appellant/complainant alleged that just after purchase of inverter and battery they started giving problem. When he opened battery to check water, poisonous gas effected his eyes. On 15.09.2010 O.P.No.2 took inverter and battery from his house and promised to supply new one, but, he did not supply upto 6/7 months. On 25.03.2011 he supplied inverter and battery of local make, as mentioned above, so he directed to supply new inverter of Mictrotek and tubular better of universal.  Learned District Forum has not appreciated facts  and law properly, so impugned order be set aside.

7.                          This Argument is of no avail. As per complainant he served notice upon O.P.No.2 on 17.04.2012 whereas the items were purchased on 28.04.2010. As per his version, O.P.No.2 supplied inverter and battery of local companies on 25.03.2011, but, he served notice on 22.03.2012 and 17.04.2012 i.e. after almost one year. If battery and inverter were not working properly since very beginning, why he waited for such a long time is not properly explained.  He has also not produced any report of any person to prove that battery or inverter  were defective. On the basis of his bald statement, it cannot be presumed that they were having this problem. His version about damage of his eyes due to battery is also not believable.  As per Ex.C4 to Ex.C9, it cannot be presumed that his eyes were effected due to emission of gas from the batter because as per these documents he was having chemical burn. It is no where alleged that any chemical came out from the battery and fell in his eyes. Had it been so, then this fact must have been mentioned in any summary.  So, his version cannot be believed.  Learned District Forum rightly came to conclusion that version of complainant is not believable and dismissed the complaint.  There is no reason to disturb the impugned order. Resultantly, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. 

 

July,19th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl. Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench