Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/430/2017

Surinder Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Crompton Greaves Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Aman Singla Adv.

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	430/2017
Date of Institution	:	30.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	08.11.2017

 

                                       

                                               

Surinder Mittal s/o Late Sh.O.P.Mittal aged 61 years r/o H.No.402, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd., CG House, 6^th Floor, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400030 through its Managing Director.

 

2. M/s Jai Durga Electricals, Plot No.427-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh -160002 through its Authorized Representative.
3. M/s Sharma Electric Works, Authorized Service Centre of M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd., Plot No.279, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.
4. M/s M.S.Jaswinder & Co,  Authorized Service Centre of M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd., Factory No.339, Phase-IX, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Authorized Representative.
5. M/s Rana Engineering Works, Authorized Service Centre of M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd., Plot No.692, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Aman Singla, Adv. for the complainant

                    Sh.D.S.Soundh,Adv.for OP No.2

                   Remaining OPs are exparte.

         

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Brief facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that he purchased a new pump make Crompton Greaves manufactured by OP No.1 from its dealer i.e. OP No.2 vide Invoice dated 10.05.2016 for Rs.16,000/- having warranty of one year. However, the said pump started giving problems in the month of November, 2016 and as such he made the complaint at the toll free number of the OP No.1. It has been averred after lodging several complaints on the toll free number of OP No.1, the Service Engineer of OP No.1 visited the premises each time and got the necessary repairs done to the pump.  It has been averred that the Service Engineer of OP No.5 informed that the pump is having some inherent manufacturing defect and is not repairable, hence needs replacement.  He again made a complaint regarding the replacement of the pump.  It has further been averred that he received several messages on his mobile in respect of the complaints lodged by him regarding the persons who was to attend his complaint. According to the complainant, the OPs have failed to replace the pump with a new one despite exchanging communications, personal visits and repeated requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Despite due service through registered post, the OPs No.1, 3 to 5 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.07.2017.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.2 did not deny the factual matrix of the case.  It has been pleaded that OP No.2 is an authorized dealer of OP No.1 and selling its products providing the warranty or guarantee of the product as directed or as it was mentioned in the warranty card contained on the sealed pack of the product.   The averments made in the complaint have been denied. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
5.         In his evidence, the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.  He has also placed on record the job sheets regarding the repairs carried out by the Service Engineers of the OPs on his complaints.  A perusal of the job sheet No.082 shows that even the Service Engineer of OP No.5 who checked the pump in question made specific remarks “needs replacement, not reparable”. It is, thus, proved that there is some inherent defect in the pump in question and the same cannot be rectified by repairs.  The complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit that he requested the OPs time and again to replace the pump but they failed to redress his grievance.  The averments made in the complaint even have not been disputed by OP No.2 in its written version.  In our considered view, OPs No.1 and 2 are duty bound to replace the defective pump of the complainant within the warranty period and non-replacement of the same despite the fact that the same was a defective one after repeated requests/visits of the complainant certainly amounts to deficiency in service as also unfair trade practice on its part.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.  OP Nos.1  and 2 are directed as under;-

1. To replace the pump in question with a new one of the same make and model and to provide a fresh warranty of one year from the date of its replacement to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

7.         This order be complied with by OP Nos.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of the order till its actual payment besides compliance of the directions at Sr.No.(i) and (iii).
8.         The complaint qua OPs No.3 to 5 stands dismissed.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08/11/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER