Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/842/2012

Ram Sawroop S/o Inder Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Goyal Machinery Mart And Co. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Sagri

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 842 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 07.08.2012      

                                                                                          Date of decision: 07.12.2016

 

Ram Sawroop, age about 55 son of Shri Inder Ram, resident of village Sagri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Goyal Machinery Mart & Co. Near State Bank of India Bus stand, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor/partner/Authorized Signatory.
2. Crompton Greaves Ltd. having its registered office at CG House 6^th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worly Mumbai-400030 through its Chairman/MD/Authorised Signatory.

                                                                                                                                      …Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. JS Sangri, Advocate for complainant.

                         Sh. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2

                         Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate for OP No.1

                       

ORDER

 

1                       The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a submersible motor of 20 HP make Crompton bearing Serial No.JGWS06304 from the OP No.1 manufactured by the OP No.2 vide bill No.112 dated 13.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.47,000/- and the motor in question was having one year warranty. After that, complainant installed the said submersible motor in his tube well on 14.01.2012 but the said motor was giving electric shock on touching. The matter was immediately reported to the OP No.1 who stated that some engineers/mechanic of the OP No.2 will visit and inspect the motor in question. On 16.01.2012, two mechanics/engineer of the OPs came to the spot and checked the motor and stated that it is due to manufacturing defect but the said engineer did not give any report/job card in this respect despite so many requests. Thereafter, complainant visited so many times and requested to the OP No.1 either to replace the said motor or refund Rs.47,000/- (cost of motor) along with interest but all in vain. Due to selling of defective motor, complainant could not sow paddy crop in his 8 acres of land. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to replace the motor in question or to refund Rs.47,000/- cost of motor along with interest. and also to pay compensation. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; complainant has no cause of action; complainant is legally estopped by his own act and conduct; complainant has concealed the true and material facts and on merit it has been admitted that complainant had purchased one submersible motor 20 HP make Crompton bearing  Sr. No.JGW-S06304, vide bill No.112 dated 13^th July, 2012, not on 13.01.2012 as mentioned in the complaint. However, it has been denied that any guarantee of one year was given by the OP No.1 as the warranty on the said pump will be of customer care center and not of the dealer i.e. OP No.1. It has been further admitted that complainant approached the OP No.1 on 15.07.2012 regarding some defect in the pump set in question, and the OP No.1 helped the complainant for registration of his complaint at Toll Free Number and complainant was registered his complaint vide complaint No.1207029519 on 15.07.2012 and after that complainant never approached to the OP No.1 lastly prayed for dismissal of the complainant qua the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complaint of the complainant was duly attended by the OP No.2 but there was no manufacturing defect in the product sold by the OPs. However, there was some electric wiring fault at the site of the complainant and also due to incorrect installation, electric shock on touching was informed by the complainant. However, there was no fault in the pump. It was due to wrong wiring, earthing was developing leading to shock as informed by the engineer. It has been further submitted that complainant lodged a complaint on 16^th July, 2012 which was duly attended by the authorized service center M/s Osahan Electrical and the complainant/ customer was told to take out the pump set from the bore-well and bringing the same for repair as service center but the complainant had refused to take out the same from the bore-well and insisted for a new pump without returning the old pump which was not possible. It has been submitted that even today the OP No.2 is ready to rectify the fault if any, if the pump is brought for repair and on merit and controverted the contents of the complaint and reiterated stands taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

5.                     In support of the case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ram Sawroop and Shri Charan Dass as CX and CY, photocopy of invoice as Annexure-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Pankaj Kumar, Authorized Representative as RW2/A, photocopy of Power of attorney as Annexure R2/1 and warranty card as Annexure R2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased a submersible motor for a sum of Rs.47,000/- vide bill No.112 dated 13.07.2012 from the OP No.1 and the motor in question was under warranty of one year. The only version of the complainant is that when the complainant installed the said submersible motor in his tube-well on 14.01.2012 then it was found that said motor was giving electric shock on touching and the matter was reported to the OP No.1 and after that engineers of the OP No.2 visited the site and inspected the motor in question but refused to replace the same. Learned counsel for the complainant draw out attention towards the affidavit (Annexure CY) filed by Shri Charan Dass son of Pala Ram in which he has stated on oath that on 16.01.2012 he was called by the Ram Sawroop to check his motor (pump-set) and when he reached there then, the mechanic of the OP company were checking motor  in question. The motor in question was giving electric current and it was manufacturing defect. Hence, there is the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed that OPs be directed to replaced the motor in question.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that complainant has totally failed to prove his case as no cogent evidence has been placed on file. Even, the complainant has not filed any copy of any mechanic/engineers report showing that the motor in question was giving electric shock. The complainant filed an application for appointment of Local Commissioner with his complaint but never pressed the same. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that when the complainant lodged his complaint on 15.07.2012, the same was duly attended by the engineer of the OPs and it was found that there was some electrical wiring fault at the site of the complainant and also due to incorrect installation, electric shock on touching was informed by the complainant. However, there was no manufacturing fault in the pump.       Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the copy of warranty card (Annexure R2/2) and job sheet (Annexure R2/3) and emails attached with this Annexure and argued that complainant was asked to bring the same after taking out the pump set from bore-well and bring the same for repair at service center but the complainant refused to take out the motor from his bore-well. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the contents mentioned in Para No.6 of the preliminary objections wherein it has been recorded that “ even today the OP No.2 is ready to rectify the fault if any, if the pump is brought for repairs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

10.                   After hearing both  the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as complainant has totally failed to file any expert/mechanic report to prove that motor (pump-set)  was having any manufacturing defect and giving electric shock. The complainant has filed only affidavit of Shri Charan Dass (Annexure CY) in support of his case whereas no such qualification or any certificate having expert in electricity line of the said Charan Dass son of Shri Pal Ram deponent has been placed on file to prove that, the said  person was qualified to give the report that motor in question was giving any electric shock. Moreover, this witness has mentioned in his affidavit  that he examined the motor on 16.01.2012 whereas on that day no such motor was in possession of the complainant as complainant had purchased the said motor (pump-set) on 13.07.2012. Meaning thereby that this witness has filed his affidavit in routine merely on the asking of the complainant as the complainant himself, in his complaint as well as affidavit (Annexure CX), has mentioned that he purchased the motor in question on 13.01.2012 whereas the motor in question was purchased on 13.07.2012. Although the OP No.2 has admitted that a complaint was lodged on 16.07.2012 by the OP No.1 on behalf of the complainant and a service job card Annexure R2/3 was prepared but as the complainant refused to takeout the motor (pump-set) from the bore-well. Hence, the Engineer of the OP No.2 could not properly examine the motor in question. So, in the absence of any cogent evidence that the motor in question was giving any electric shock due to manufacturing defect, we are unable to hold that the motor in question was having manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get it replaced.

11.                   From the other angle also, if the motor in question was giving electric shock then the complainant could not use it even for a single day as there was apprehension for any casualty but the complainant is using this motor without any complaint since its purchase and during the pendency of complaint, complainant never tried to get any Local Commissioner or Technical expert appointed to examine the motor in question which is mandatory as per Section 13(1)(c)  which is reproduced here as under:

[Procedure on admission of complaint]. The District Forum shall, [on admission of a complaint], if it relates to any goods,-

(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtained a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed  to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis  or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum. 

12.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, complainant has totally failed to prove his case and accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court: 07.12.2016.

                                   

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                         PRESIDENT, DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

                                                                                     

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )                 

                                                                         MEMBER.