BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
C.C.No. 298 of 2015.
Date of Instt.: 16.11.2015.
Date of Decision: 01.09.2016.
Raj Kumar Wadhwa son of Shri Hari Chand Wadhwa, Gali No.2, Ward No.17, Nehar Colony, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s King Star Electrical, Toana Road, near Bhuna Kainchi Ratia, District Fatehabad.
2.Swastic Cooper Private Limited E1/1274, phase-III Sitapura Industrial Area Jaipur, 302022.
3.Jagdish Ji Post Main Post Office, Ratia District Fateabad.
4.Chief Post Master General Haryana, Ambala.
5.Superintendent Post Office, Hisar Division, Hisar.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Ravinder Singh, counsel for the OP No.1.
None for OP No.2.
Sh.Rajesh Kumar, SDI for OP Nos. 3 to 5.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner of land measuring 29 kanal 13 marla situated at Bigher Road. In the year 2010 he obtained electric connection from DHBVNL under Tubewell Self connection Scheme. He purchased a transformer of 25 KVA having serial No.57100, manufactured by OP No.2, from OP No.1 on 30.05.2010. After completing all the formalities said transformer was started on 01.10.2010. Said transformer was carrying warranty of 72 months from the date of installation. During warranty period transformer in question went out of order therefore complainant visited OP No.1 on 28.05.2015 and requested to get it checked and repaired but OP No.1 refused to do so by saying that OP No.2 do not provide material, repair charges and labour etc. The complainant again requested the Op No.1 to get the same repaired because warranty period of 17 months qua the transformer was remaining but when it showed its inability then he approached Op No.2 on telephone and came to know that OP No.2 had sold the transformer to the Op No.1 with one year warranty and the warranty paper of 72 months are bogus being not issued by it. The complainant requested the OP No.2 to provide information in writing but it did not provide any information despite receiving of email address on 29.05.2015. On 03.06.2015 he sent registered letter but the Op No.1 in connivance with Op No.3 succeeded to get the same returned undelivered with remarks “not readable”. The complainant put the matter to the higher authorities of Op No.3 but no action had been taken against it. The Ops No.1 & 2 failed to get the transformer repaired and did not provide the benefit of warranty period, therefore, he get the same repaired on 22.06.2015 at his own by spending Rs.6970/-. Due to the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment besides financial loss which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW3, Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, Annexure1 to Annexure 22.
2. On being served, Ops appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken various preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and locus standi etc. It has been submitted that no warranty qua the transformer was given to the complainant and the same has been mentioned in the bill also. No document of warranty issued by the Op No.2 has been given to the complainant. He has never informed the Op No.1 about not working of transformer and the story put-forth by him is concocted because no warranty has been given at the time of selling of transformer.
3. OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the transformer sold to the OP No.1 was having 12 months guarantee. The transformer in question was started on 0.10.2010 therefore the warranty of the same expired on 01.10.2011. Moreover, transformer in question went out of order on 28.05.2015. The complainant has never approached it for repairing of the transformer either by telephonically or by writing.
4. OP Nos. 3 to 5 have filed joint reply and submitted that present complaint is not maintainable as no notice under Section 80 CPC has been given. The OP Nos. 3 to 5 have no concern with the matter in dispute as it belongs to complainant, OP No.1 and OP No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of department as all possible efforts were made to deliver the RL to the given addressee and the same was returned back to the complainant as per exiting Postal Department Rules. All the Ops have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. In evidence the Ops have tendered affidavits and documents Ex.RW1, Ex.RW2.
4. Heard. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the appearing counsel/representative on behalf of Ops have reiterated the averments made in the replies and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased a transformer of 25 KVA 4 Star from OP No.1. The grievance of the complainant is that despite warranty period the OP Nos.1 & 2 failed to get the transformer repaired and despite his visits and requests they did not redress his grievance. The question left for adjudication before this Forum is that the liability to repair the transformer is with whom during warranty period. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that no warranty qua the transformer was given to the complainant and the same has been mentioned in the bill also. The arguments advanced on behalf of OP No.1 appears to be not tenable because as per transformer Test certificate the transformer is guaranteed for satisfactory performance under normal operating condition for period of 72 months from the date of commissioning. Any fault occurring within this period due to defective material or faulty workmanship shall be repaired free of costs. The complainant has come with the plea that when the OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not get the same repaired then he got the transformer repaired from his own by spending Rs.6970/- and this version finds support from bill issued by Bajaj electric works. From the material available on the case file, we have no hitch to say that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 left unattended the complainant after the selling of the transformer because instead of satisfying the consumer they are trying to escape from the liability by making various lame grounds which are not supported with any reliable and cogent evidence. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide protection to consumers from getting cheated or harassed by suppliers and it is the duty of the Forum to provide a simpler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. The act and conduct of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 clearly reveals that how negligent they are in doing the needful to the transformer in question forcing the complainant to approach this Forum. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are not supposed to get only earning and profit from the selling of the product because they are also having liabilities to redress the grievance by making the product defect free during warranty period but in the present case the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have failed to do so. Though the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have taken pleas that the transformer was having no warranty and it was having one year warranty but this plea appears to have been taken in order to avoid the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant has failed to bring any evidence against OP Nos. 3 to 5 regarding their being deficient in providing service, therefore, complaint against OP Nos. 3 to 5 is dismissed. However, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2 as defined in Sections 2 (f) and 2 (g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay Rs.6970/- spent by the complainant for repairing of the transformer in question and further to pay compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of Rs.6970/- will carry interest @ 9 % per annum till realization of the amount. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.01.09.2016
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
