Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/86

Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gautam Auto Spare Parts - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kamal Singh Rana,Adv.

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2021

                                              Date of institution: 03.12.2021

                                              Date of Decision: 02.01.2023

 

 

Surjit Singh aged about 83 years, son of Sh. Sewa Singh, resident of Mohalla Bari Sarkar, Sri Anandpur Sahib Town, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar

…….Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Gautam Auto Spare Parts and hardware pipeline Roper Road, Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar through its Proprietor Sh. Tulsi son of Sh. Sant Ram  

                                                    ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:       Sh. Ranjit Singh, President.

                               Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

PRESENT:       Sh. Kamal Singh Rana, Advocate, for complainant  

Sh. Ashish Kumar, Advocate, for OP  

              
 

 ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the OP is doing the business of selling auto spare parts and hardware pipeline including submersible water motors under the name and style of Gautam Auto Spare Part and Hardware Pipeline at Ropar Road Kiratpur Sahib, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. It is averred that complainant purchased submersible water motor/pump of 5 HP of Crompton bearing Model No.6W3F5-CB and Product serial No.WIA1RH0596 by paying an amount of Rs.26,880/- on 20.06.2019 vide invoice No.539. complainant also purchased one PVC pipe, filter, socket and other material for the purpose of installing the same from the OP to the tune of Rs.27420/- vide invoice No.538 dated 20.06.2019. It is alleged that after installation of the submersible water motor in the agriculture land in village Sahota, the motor stopped working after one month due to some technical defect, as such, the motor was returned and the OP immediately replaced the same with the new one. However, the mechanic engaged by the complainant fitted old monobloc water motor on the bore in the borewell, which was successful in lifting out the water, as such, the motor replaced by the OP was returned to him in the same packed condition. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To pay Rs.26,880/- with interest. 
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as damages to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.    

2. Upon notice, the O.P. has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP; that the present complaint is in fructuous from the very inception of its filing; that the complainant has neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is based upon afterthoughts, wrong, false, vague, concocted, unnatural, unbelievable, baseless allegations and the same is full of hiding and suppressing the real and actual facts from this Commission. On merits, it is stated that the OP already replaced the motor to the complainant through new motor and the new motor/replaced motor is in possession of the complainant. But the complainant with the connivance of his relatives and friends by levelling false allegations upon the OP wants to grab amount from the OP wrongly and illegally. So, the question of any kind of alleged assurance of the OP to the complainant or the question of returning the alleged amount of said motor, does not arise at all. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against the OP with cost.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C7 along with documents in the shape of evidence as Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 & Ex.C8 & Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavits Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed the evidence.

4.  

5.   In view of the evidence placed on record by both the parties, we allow the complaint with the direction to the OP to pay Rs.26,880/- as price of the motor paid by the complainant to the OP. The OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The OP is further directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

January 02, 2023

                                                                                                            (Ranjit Singh)

                                                 President

                                     

 

                                     (Ranvir Kaur)

                                         Member