BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.370 of 2015
Date of Instt. 26.08.2015
Date of Decision :26.10.2016
Mr. Bharat Purohit S/o Tikma Ramjit resident of Sainik Viar, Gali No.6, Dhilwan Road, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Gitika Machine Tools, Gazi Gulla, Jalandhar through its Prop./ Manager Satpal Bhardwaj and Arush Bhardwaj.
Satpal Bhardwaj and Arush Bhardwaj, Prop./ Manager of M/s. Gitika Machine Tools, Gazi Gulla, Jalandhar.
M/s. Nixon address to be disclosed by the opposite party No.1 and 2.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Smt.Sudesh Kumari Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Sushil Mehta Adv., counsel for the OP No.1 &2.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs), on the averments that he purchased an Adda Grinder Polishers No.3 Machine from the opposite parties vide invoice No. 1093 dated 1/7/2015 for Rs. 19,620/- and the machine was delivered to the complainant on 9/7/2015. The complainant submitted that when the complainant worked on this machine, the same got hot and the matter was reported to the opposite parties and the complainant was advised to switch off the machine for some time and then use the same. Again on 11/7/2015, the motor of the said machine got burnt. The complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties and on their advice, he brought the machine at their shop on 15/7/2015 and they returned the machine to the complainant on 1/8/2015 after some repairs. But again the said machine did not work properly and after some time, it got hot and working problems every day. On 9/7/2015, the said machine became totally out of order and the complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties on 10/7/2015. The opposite parties rectified the defect in the machine but again on 11/7/2015, the machine did not work properly and the complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties on telephone i.e. 11/7/2015, 13/7/2015, 14/7/2015, 15/7/2015, 16/7/2015, 20/7/2015, 27/7/2015, 28/7/2015, 29/7/2015, 31/7/2015, 1/8/2015 and 2/8/2015. On 1/8/2015, the complainant requested the opposite parties to remove the defect of the machine properly or to change the machine. The opposite parties advised the complainant to bring the machine at their shop. The complainant took the machine to the shop of the opposite parties on 3/8/2015. The said machine was opened by Arush Bhardwaj at their service station. The complainant then found that it was having totally duplicate binding and the machine is of cheap quality. The opposite parties then got loaded the said machine in an open condition on the tempoo on 3/8/2015 and send the same to the address of the complainant. The said machine is still lying with the complainant in an open condition. The complainant thereafter issued legal notice dated 7/8/2015 to the opposite parties to either rectify the defect in the machine or to change the same or to refund the price of the machine to the complainant but the opposite parties even did not submit any reply to the said notice. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant. The complainant thereafter prayed for direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of the machine alongwith interest. The complainant prayed for compensation on account of harassment as well as loss of business and also prayed for cost of litigation.
2. Upon notice, OP No.1 &2 appeared through counsel and filed joint written reply in which they submitted that the opposite parties sold brand new machine to the complainant without any manufacturing defect. The complainant approached the opposite parties with some complaints of minor problem and the same was immediately attended to the satisfaction of the complainant and the problem in the machine was totally rectified. The opposite parties denied that the complainant on 3/8/2015 took the machine to the shop of the opposite parties and the same was opened by Arush Bhardwaj at their service station and the machine was found totally duplicate binding and seems to be of cheap quality. The opposite parties further denied that the complainant issued legal notice dated 7/8/2015 to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not receive any such notice. However during the course of proceedings of this case, the counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2 Sh. Sushil Mehta Advocate got recorded the statement that opposite party is ready to re-bind the machine in question of the complainant free of costs and will make the machine fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant as a good will gesture. The opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex. CA & Ex. CB alongwith copies of documents Ex. CA/1 to Ex. CA/5 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 &2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP/A and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased the aforesaid machine from the opposite parties vide invoice No. 1093 dated 1/7/2015 Ex. CA/1 for a sum of Rs. 19,620/- and the said machine was delivered to the complainant on 9/7/2015. When the complainant used this machine, it became hot. The matter was reported to the opposite parties. Thereafter on 11/7/2015, the motor of the said machine got burnt and the complainant brought the machine to the shop of the opposite parties on 15/7/2015 and the opposite parties returned the machine to the complainant on 1/8/2015 after rectification of the problem. But again on 9/7/2015, the machine became hot and did not work properly and the same was rectified by the opposite parties on 10/7/2015 but again on 11/7/2015, the machine was suffering with the same problem and the complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties on 11/7/2015, 13/7/2015, 14/7/2015, 15/7/2015, 16/7/2015, 20/7/2015, 27/7/2015, 28/7/2015, 29/7/2015, 31/7/2015, 1/8/2015 and 2/8/2015 and the opposite parties told the complainant to bring the machine at their shop. Resultantly, the complainant took the machine to the shop of the opposite parties on 3/8/2015 and it was opened by Arush Bhardwaj at the service station of the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not repair the machine in question rather send the same to the complainant in opened condition as is evident from the photograph Ex. CA/4. The said machine is still lying in opened condition with the complainant. The complainant also filed affidavit of one Sanjeev Kumar Ex. CB who is running private tempo who took the machine to the workshop of M/s Gitika Machine Tools i.e. opposite party and this witness stated that machine was opened by Arush Bhardwaj in the presence of this witness on 3/8/2015 but did not rectify the problem in the machine and loaded the said machine in an open condition in his tempo and this witness brought the machine in question to the complainant in an open condition. The opposite parties did not rebut this evidence. Thereafter, the complainant also served legal notice dated 7/8/2015 Ex. C2/A through registered post, on the opposite parties but the opposite parties neither rectified the problem of the machine in question nor submitted any reply to this notice. However the learned counsel for the opposite parties got recorded his statement dated 6/10/2016 in this forum to the effect that the opposite party is ready to re-bind the machine in question of the complainant, free of cost and will make the machine fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant as a good will gesture. So all this shows that the machine was not working properly and as such, the opposite party is liable to repair the same and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant but the opposite party did not do so. Thereby the complainant was forced to file this complaint and suffered harassment. Resultantly, we hold that the opposite party is deficiency of service qua the complainant regarding the machine in question. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the opposite party to rebind/ repair the machine properly and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party has harassed the complainant by not repairing the machine and making it fully functional, therefore, the opposite party is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The OP is also directed to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
26.10.2016 Member President
