BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 40 of 2017                                                                        

                                                    Date of Institution         :    20.2.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :    15.11.2018.

Rajender Kumar, aged about 35 years son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/S Mehta Enterprises, Circular Road, Near Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Proprietor.

2. Unnati Pumps Pvt. Limited, 81, Amarnath Industrial Estate, Opposite Shyana Estate, Naroda Road, Memco, Ahmedabad- 380025 (Gujrat) India.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER

Present:       Sh. B.C. Bhatiwal ,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Surinder Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. Vinod Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is an agriculturist having land in village Sadewala, District Sirsa. That complainant had purchased one tubewell motor bearing Sr. No.017280 from opposite party (no.1 ) on 8.10.2016 on cash payment of of Rs.74,694/- vide bill No.688 dated 8.10.2016. The op no.2 is the manufacturing company of tubewell motor. That at the time of purchasing the above said motor, the op gave guarantee of the above said motor for two years from the date of purchase in all respects. The op also assured that during one year in case of any defect of motor, it shall be removed free of costs and in case of any manufacturing defect said motor shall be replaced or amount shall be refunded with interest. It is further averred that after purchase of said motor, it was installed in the fields of Daya Ram son of Daulat Ram in the area of village Khajakhera for irrigating his field, but it could not be worked properly and there was serious problem of router and due to this reason the motor was burnt badly. The complainant could not irrigate his 18 acres of land in which Narma crop was sown. The said 18 acres of land was taken by complainant on lease i.e. two acre from Mohinder son of Aadu Ram of Sadewala, 5½ acres from Kamla Devi wife of Mahender, 8 acres from Ranjit son of Sheopat and 2½ acres from father of complainant and due to non irrigation, the narma crop of complainant in 18 acres was destroyed and complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,50,000/-.  It is further averred that electric connection is in the name of Daya Ram son of Daulat Ram but the said electric connection is being used by the complainant and motor was also purchased in the name of complainant. The complainant is irrigating his fields by erecting underground pipelines. That cause of action arose to complainant for filing of the complaint against op on his denial to admit the claim of complainant and thereafter finally when the op has finally refused to admit the claim of complainant and the same still continues. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to replace the motor with new one or in the alternative to refund Rs.74,694/- with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of purchase till its realization and also to pay Rs.1,50,000/- on account of loss of narma crop sown by complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment  and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice besides litigation expenses.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of true and material facts and that complainant is not the consumer of ops as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of parties because the manufacturing company has not been impleaded as party and the replying op has been unnecessarily impleaded as party in the complaint because the guarantee/ warrantee conditions of the product always mentioned in the book-let of the product manufactured by the company, hence after the sale of the product, only the manufacturing company and the service provider/ care centre of the company are responsible for the working of the product. On merits, it is submitted that it is correct that complainant had purchased tubewell motor from the replying op. However, it is submitted that complainant purchased the sealed pack motor from the complainant as the box of motor was opened in the presence of complainant and after complete satisfaction of complainant and qua the brand of the company, the complainant purchased the same. It is wrong to say that any such guarantee has been given by the answering op. However, it is submitted that the answering op is doing his business on a nominal profit, whereas the customer prepared their mind to purchase the required product and the complainant after enquiry about all the detail of product which have been mentioned in the booklet inside the box of product purchased the product. It is further submitted that just on the personal request of the complainant, though it was not the liability of the answering op but inspite of this being good human being the replying op got checked the motor router and no problem was detected therein. Now when the motor has been burnt only because of fluctuation/ high voltage supply the complainant only in order to put the undue pressure upon the replying op has filed this false complaint, hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is further submitted that name of persons have been mentioned only to create the false evidence. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.

3.                On being impleaded, opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding misjoinder of parties; maintainability; cause of action; suppression of true and material facts; complainant is not consumer of the ops and estoppal etc. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has purchased the sealed pack motor as the box of motor was opened in the presence of complainant which fact is admitted one and after complete satisfaction of the complainant and qua the brand of the company, the complainant purchased the same. Hence the defect in the motor if any is not result of any manufacturing defect therein or any kind of defect in the manufacturing of the product rather the defect if any which has though never been reported to the op company is presumed to be the result of mis-handling and non proper use of the motor by the complainant. The complainant has brought this complaint out of his own wrongs and out of his own fault, hence the present complaint is nothing but only the result of misuse of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that there is no provisions of guarantee on any product and only warranty is provided subject to the terms and conditions of the company. The op no.2 also reiterated the lines of op no.1. It is further submitted that as per the service provided by the company, in case of any manufacturing defect in the product the same is brought to the Service Centre of the company within the stipulated warranty period as is provided by the company and this thing is also advised to the customers by the Dealer, in case the consumer approach them to get their complaint redressed from the authorized service centres. The complainant even did not approach to the service centre of the company within the stipulated period and non production of any job sheet also supports this version. While reiterating the remaining version of the op no.1 and denying all other contents of complaint, the op no.2 has also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                The parties then led their respective evidence. Ld. counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajender Kumar complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Mahinder Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Daya Ram Ex.CW3/A, affidavit of Smt. Kamla Devi Ex.CW4/A, affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Ex.CW5/A and copy of bill Ex.C1. On the other hand, ld. counsel for op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Shashi Bhushan, Proprietor Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Sarvan Kumar Mechanic Ex.RW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Mechanic Ex.RW3/A and copy of bill Ex.R1. Ld. counsel for op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Kamal Kumar authorized officer of op no.2 as Ex.RW4/B.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The perusal of the record reveals that the complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished affidavit of Sh. Rajender Kumar complainant Ex.CW1/A, in which he reiterated all the same allegations made in the complaint. He has specifically deposed that he has purchased one tubewell motor at SR. No.017280 from the opposite party on 8.10.2016 on cash payment of Rs. 74,694/- vide bill No.688 dated 8.10.2016 which is manufactured by op no.2. He has further deposed that the motor was installed in the area of Khajakhera in the fields of Daya Ram son of Daulat Ram for irrigating of his field. The motor could not be worked properly and there was serious problem of router and due to this reason the motor was burnt badly. He has also deposed that he lodged complaint with the opposite parties qua the defect and burning of the motor. He has tendered the bill as Ex. C1. He has also furnished the affidavit of Sh. Mahinder Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Daya Ram Ex.CW3/A, affidavit of Smt. Kamla Devi Ex.CW4/A, affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Ex.CW5/A.

7.                On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 has furnished the affidavit of its proprietor Shashi Bhushan as Ex.RW1/A in which he has deposed in terms of the defence plea taken by opposite party no.1 in the written statement. He has further denied the warranty of the motor and there was no question of replacement of motor.  Opposite party no.1 has further tendered the affidavit of Sh. Sarvan Kumar Mechanic Ex.RW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Mechanic Ex.RW3/A. They have deposed that they have checked the motor and found that the motor has suffered burnt MCs due to high voltage supply or due to fluctuation there in the voltage supplied or running of the tubewell motor on the dim supply. The opposite party no.2 has also furnished the affidavit of Sh. Kamal Kumar son of Jeet Ram authorized person of op no.2 as Ex.RW4/B who also deposed in terms of defence plea of the opposite party taken in the written statement. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.

8.                The perusal of the evidence of the ops reveals that they have relied upon the affidavits of Sh. Sarvan Kumar Mechanic Ex.RW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh Mechanic Ex.RW3/A who are alleged to be mechanics of tubewell motor but they have not mentioned the date and the month when they inspected the motor in a burnt condition due to high voltage. Further more, they have not placed on record any expert report qua the cause of burning of motor. Nor ops have placed on record any such report. The ops have also not placed on record report of electricity department that on the particular time and day there was high voltage and due to that tubewell motor may be burnt. So this plea of the ops appears to be devoid of any merits.

9.                Since, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant has purchased the tubewell motor from op no.1 which was manufactured by op no.2 and it is the legal obligation of the ops to provide service to the complainant by carrying out the necessary repair in the motor of the complainant. Non providing of service clearly amounts to deficiency in service.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out the necessary repair in the motor of the complainant and make it defect free even by replacing any part of the motor without any costs within 15 days from the receipt of the motor from the complainant against proper receipt or in the alternate if it is found that motor is not repairable, in that situation the ops are directed to give replacement of the motor with a new one of the same make and model without any costs within further period of 15 days or to make refund of the price of the motor. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                                President,

Dated:15.11.2018.                                      Member                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.