Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/228

Kunal Sofat - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s J.K.Hardware&Paint Store - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 228 of 06.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   15.06.2016

Kunal Sofat, 57 Friends Colony Pakhowal Road, village Daad, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

M/s. J.K.Hardware & Paint Store, Near Kochar Market Chowk, Ludhiana.

…Opposite party

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        None.                   

For OP                           :        Ex-parte 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Sh.Kunal Sofat filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he purchased eight set of door locks/handles from Op on 9.4.2009 after paying the full price of Rs.6545/-. Warranty of 10 years in respect of replacement was provided by the seller. Till November 2013, the seller had replaced one set of door handles. On 20.1.2014, when the complainant asked the owner of OP concern to exchange the broken/non working handles, then he immediately disclosed as if he had stopped selling the said items. OP refused to change the above said handles, despite the fact that tenure of warranty was still in existence. A notice/reminder was sent to OP, but even after lapse of 4 months, reply was not received from Op. Complainant claims that he along with his family members facing mental harassment due to non working of the door handles/locks. Prayer made for punishing the dealer because he is alleged to have cheated the customer. Even prayer made for directing OP to change all the non working/broken door handles. Compensation of Rs.55,000/- even claimed by pleading as if big crime committed by owner/partner of the Op concern.

2.                 In reply submitted by OP, it is claimed that complaint has been filed by the complainant only to grab the money and harass the OP. Besides,     it is claimed that OP never sold the locks to the complainant and as such, complainant has no cause of action available against OP. Complaint alleged to be based on false and frivolous grounds. It is denied that locks/handles purchased by the complainant from Op on 9.4.2009 for the above referred amount or that warranty of 10 years was provided or that OP replaced one set of door handles till November, 2013. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that the whole story put forth in the complaint is concocted one.  

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with document Ex.C1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                Due opportunities were granted to the OP for producing evidence after closure of evidence by the complainant on 17.11.2015. No evidence was produced by OP on 7.12.2015, 4.1.2016, 3.2.2016 and 3.3.2016. Adjournment to OP for producing evidence was granted for 5.4.2016 subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund. On 5.4.2016, no evidence of OP was present and at the request of proxy counsel, case was posted for 21.4.2016 for evidence of OP and deposit of costs. Neither these costs were deposited nor any evidence produced on 21.4.2016. Even none appeared for OP on 21.4.2016 and as such, OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide orders of 16.5.2016.

5.                On application filed by the complainant, he was allowed to tender in additional evidence document Ex.CX and thereafter, complainant closed the additional evidence. After closure of this additional evidence, oral arguments of complainant were heard and he has not submitted any written arguments. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Complainant claims to have purchased eight door locks/handles with warranty of 10 years through bill Ex.CX from Op. However, OP has denied the sale of these door locks/handles in written statement. Original of Ex.CX has not been produced. In whose hands the original of Ex.CX issued qua that averment of complainant or of affidavit of complainant Ex.CA are silent and as such, just on strength of photostat copy of Ex.CX alone it can’t be inferred that complainant actually purchased the door locks/handles from OP with warranty of 10 years. Name of brand of door locks/handles even not mentioned by the complainant in complaint or anywhere in his evidence. Even the brand of these door locks/handles not given in Ex.CX and as such, virtually the complainant is not able to prove that door locks/handles were purchased by him from Op. Mention of words “Guaranty 10 years” on Ex.CX will not prove that actually guaranty of 10 years was provided by OP. Signature of OP underneath Ex.CX are not there and as such that reliance on Ex.CX cannot be placed for holding that actually the door locks/handles were purchased by the   complainant from OP. Name of the person in whose handwriting words 10 years Guarantee in Ex.CX recorded, not mentioned in the complaint or in the produced evidence and as such, reliance on Ex.CX cannot be placed. The words guarantee 10 years recorded in Ex.CX in Punjabi, but other wording is in English and as such, this wording of guarantee 10 years cannot be said to be in the hand of OP. It is for the complainant to prove as to who wrote the words guarantee 10 years underneath Ex.CX, but he has not been able to show as to with whose hands, the words guarantee 10 years recorded and as such, on the basis of photostat copy of alleged bill alone, it cannot be inferred that actually the complainant purchased the door locks/handles with guarantee of 10 years. So, produced evidence in no way establishes that OP bound to replace the door locks/handles. In what way door locks/handles became non functional qua that nothing stated in the complaint or in the produced evidence and as such, complaint seems to be filed for abusing the process of law. In view of this, complaint merits dismissal for want of proof.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                            

                      (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:15.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.