Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/541

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kapur Mill Gin Store - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Heer Adv

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 541 dated 03.12.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 14.10.2022.

 

Narinder Singh S/o.Sh. Amar Singh, Sole Proprietor, Babe Di Chakki, Baghwali Gali, Near Sakhi Mandir, Ludhiana-141008.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant 

•  

1. M/s. Kapur Mill Gin Stores, Field Ganj, Gudwara Dukhnwaran Road, Ludhiana-141008 through its partners S.Sh. Yuvraj Kapur, Sunil K. Kapur, Swaraj Kapur and Ms. Renu Kapur.
2. Ms. Vanita Kapur w/o. Sh. Sunil Kumar Kapur C/o. M/s. Kapur Mill Gin Stores, Field Ganj, Gudwara Dukhnwaran Road, Ludhiana-141008                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 2, 35 & 36 of the Consumer        Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. S.S. Heer, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.  

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is running a chakki (flour mill) under the name and style of M/s. Babe Di Chakki, Baghwali Gali, Near Sakhi Mandir, Ludhiana to earn his livelihood and maintain his family. OP1 is the manufacturer and supplier of the flour mill, rice seller and dall mill plant etc. The complainant contacted OP1 for the purchase of pulvizer  having capacity of 300 Kg per hour. OP1 quoted a price of Rs.80,000/- for the pulvizer and Rs.32,000/-for electric motors etc. The complainant paid a booking amount of Rs.3500/-. On the instructions of OP1, the complainant transferred Rs.24,500/- on 04.09.2021 through UPI, Rs.23,100/- dated 08.09.2021 again through a UPI transaction, Rs.20,000/- on 09.09.2021 also through UPI transaction  and another sum of Rs.12,000/- dated 09.09.2021 itself through UPI transaction. The payments were made in the name of OP2 on the asking of OP1. In addition to this, the complainant further paid Rs.32,000/- in cash and in all, paid a sum of Rs.1,11,600/- towards full cost of pulvizer.

2.                It is further alleged that after the receipt of the payment, OP1 delivered the pulvizer to the complainant on 11.09.2021 without any bill. After the receipt of the machine, the complainant found that the same was not working properly as per the capacity assured by OP1 at the time of placing the order. Thus, there was a manufacturing defect in the pulvizer. The complainant requested OP1 to depute some technical person to being the machine to a proper working condition and OP1 deputed one representative namely Mr. Ali after about one month from the supply of pulvizer. However, despite the efforts made by the said representative, the machine could not be restored to proper working condition. It was giving production of 40 Kg per hour instead of 300 Kgs per hour, as assured by the OPs. The complainant again contacted the OPs and requested them to either supply the proper machine having production capacity of 300 kg per hour but to no avail. The complainant further requested OP1 to issue a bill but OP1 did not bother nor issued the bill against the pulvizer which was supplied after about one month of the receipt of full and final payment. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Even a legal notice dated 12.11.2021 served upon the complainant through his counsel failed to evoke a positive response from the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to either replace the pulvizer  with a new one in proper working condition having production capacity of 300 kg per hour or to refund the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3.                Upon notice, the OPs did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.05.2022.

4.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.

6.                In the affidavit Ex. CA, the complainant has reiterated the entire case as set forth in the complaint and has further placed on record the copy of passbook in respect of his account maintained with Punjab National Bank which contains debit entries vide which payments were made to the OPs on different dates towards the pulvizer machine. It has further been categorically stated in the affidavit that after the pulvizer machine was delivered to the complainant, it did not work properly and was not working to the optimum capacity of 300 Kg per hour and despite the repeated requests made by the complainant, the machine was not repaired/restored to the proper working condition nor it was replaced. As the OPs have not even bothered to contest the present complaint and all the allegations made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and uncontroverted on record and on the basis of uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint and in the supporting affidavit Ex. CA, we are of the considered view that the OPs have supplied a defective pulvizer machine to the complainant which has not been working properly ever since its delivery was given to the complainant nor has it been yielding the desired result in terms of its capacity. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to either replace the machine with a new one having proper capacity of 300 Kg per hour or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of order along with composite cost and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs to either replace the machine with a new one having proper capacity of 300 Kg per hour or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Narinder Singh Vs M/s.Kapur Mill Gin Stores                         CC/21/541

Present:       Sh. S.S. Heer, Advocate for the complainant.

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs to either replace the machine with a new one having proper capacity of 300 Kg per hour or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.1,16,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.