BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.408 of 2015

Date of Instt. 18.09.2015

Date of Decision : 26.09.2016

Sanjeev Jain, Advocate, son of Janki Dass Jain, R/o Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Lifeline Tredmill, Basti Road, Jalandhar City through Surjit Singh its Proprietor.

2.Surjit Singh, Proprietor, M/s Lifeline Tredmill, Basti Road, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.MK Jain Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Sukrant Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

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 the complainant purchased Tredmill Electric Motor which became out of order and complainant approached OP and handed over the defective motor to OP on 27.1.2015 against receipt No.912 dated 27.1.2015. The OP after checking the motor told to the complainant that the motor is beyond repairs, as such it has to be replaced with new motor on payment of Rs.7000/-. The complainant paid Rs.7000/- to the OP for replacement of the motor with new one. On 12.2.2015, when the complainant went to OP to take delivery of new motor, the OP refused to replace the motor with new one nor refund the the amount of Rs.7000/-. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund Rs.7000/- received from the complainant as price of new motor. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed a written reply pleaded that the complainant handed over the defective motor to the Ops for necessary repairs on 27.1.2015 against receipt No.912 dated 27.11.2015. After the inspection of the record of said machine, it was found that complainant is not a direct purchaser from the Ops and the warranty period of the said machine has expired. Ops denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs 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 proced on record that the complainant purchased Tredmill Electric Motor which became out of order and complainant approached OP and handed over the defective motor to OP on 27.1.2015 against receipt No.912 dated 27.1.2015 Ex.C1. The OP after checking the motor told to the complainant that the motor is beyond repairs, as such it has to be replaced with new motor on payment of Rs.7000/-. Resultantly, the complainant paid Rs.7000/- to the OP for replacement of the motor with new one. The OP did not deny these facts in their written version. Rather the OP in para No.1 on merits of the written version, has admitted that the complainant handed over the defective motor to the OP for necessary repairs on 27.1.2015 vide receipt No.912 dated 27.1.2015 which is Ex.C1 produced by the complainant. However, the OP submitted that after inspection the OP came to know that complainant is not a direct purchaser from the OP and the warranty period of the said machine has expired, but no where in the written version the OP has stated that they returned the defective motor to the complainant nor they denied that they did not receive the amount of Rs.7000/- for replacement of the motor with new one. Here in this case, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the motor from the OP nor there is question of warranty. The case of the complainant is that he handed over the defective motor of Tredmill to the OP for repairs and they received the same and told to the complainant that the motor is beyond repairs and it requires replacement with new one. Resultantly, on the asking of the OP, the complainant deposited Rs.7000/- with OP for replacement of the motor with new one and these facts have been admitted by the OP directly that the complainant handed over the defective machine to the OP and they received the same vide receipt No.912 dated 27.1.2015 Ex.C1 and they indirectly admitted that they had also received Rs.7000/- for the replacement of the motor in question from the complainant but the OP neither repaired the defective motor of the complainant nor handed over the new one nor returned the amount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant nor denied these facts in their written version specifically. As such, we hold that the OPs are liable to returned this amount Rs.7000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation.

7. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with cost and the Ops are directed to return this amount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/-. Ops are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

26.09.2016 Member President