Haryana

Karnal

78/2013

Rajinder Kour W/o Mann Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Neelkanth Submersible Boring Boring - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Chauhan

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.78 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.: 8.02.2013

                                                          Date of decision: 16.3.2016

 

Rajinder Kour w/o Mann Singh resident of village Piont District Karnal..

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

M/s Neelkanth Submersible Boring  through its prop. Billu Opposite Party Electricity Office, Main Road Jundla District Karnal.

                                                                         ………… Opposite  Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.R.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Nirmal Singh Advocate for the  Opposite Party.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that  she purchased one electricity motor pump set of 15 BHP alongwith other equipments for tubewell from the Opposite Party  for Rs.94094/-  as per bill dated 5.9.2012. She was told that  motor was of 15 BHP and an amount of Rs.30500/- was charged from her   for  that motor, though the bill of Rs.21500/-was issued. After few days, the motor and pump stopped working and on checking by the mechanic , it was found that motor was of 12.5BHP and the pipes of the bore supplied by the Opposite Party were of poor quality. The  matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party and after verification, the Opposite Party assured to replace the motor and the pump, but did not replace the same despite repeated requests. In this way, there was deficiency in services and  unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, which caused her unnecessary mental agony apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and that the complainant is estopped by her own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that in July, 2012 the complainant approached the Opposite Party for purchase of one submersible pump set of 12.5BHP bearing Sr.No.303062 for an amount of Rs.27500/-, regarding which bill No.128 dated 26.6.2012 was issued. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and purchased another set of submersible motor and pump of 15 BHP bearing Sr.No.91912 and  in that regard bill  No.142 dated 5.9.2012 was issued. The Opposite Party had installed only 12.5BHP motor in submersible bore existing in the field of the complainant. The 15 BHP motor was never installed by the Opposite Party in the bore of the complainant. The sanctioned load of the submersible tubewell installed in the fields of the complainant was also of 12.5BHP  having account no.AP-36-1597 and she was paying the electricity charges of 12.5 BHP motor only. The complaint is false and frivolous and the same has been filed by the complainant just to harass the Opposite Party and grab money from him. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Billu alias Balinder proprietor of Opposite Party Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O3 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 As per the case of the complainant, she purchased one motor of 15 BHP from the Opposite Party on 5.9.2012. This fact has not been disputed by the Opposite Party. Even otherwise this fact stands established from the copies of the bill dated 5.9.2012 Ex.O2 and Ex.C2. The Opposite Party has alleged that the complainant had purchased one motor of 12.5 BHP on 26.6.2012 and in that regard bill, the copy of which is Ex.O1, was issued. The material question which arises for consideration is whether the Opposite Party had supplied the motor of 12.5BHP to the complainant instead of 15BHP.The bill Ex.C2/Ex.O2 shows that the Opposite Party had sold one submersible pump set of 15 BHP of Maxwell bearing Serial No.9192. The complainant has produced photographs of submersible pump set Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. In the photograph Ex.C3 serial number of 12.5BHP motor has been shown as 92 25542, whereas the Opposite Party had sold the pump set of 15 BHP to the complainant bearing serial No.91912. Thus, it is emphatically clear that   pump set shown in the photograph is not of the pump set sold by the Opposite Party to the complainant. Except the solitary affidavit of the complainant that the Opposite Party had given her motor of 12.5BHP instead of 15 BHP, there is no other evidence on record. The said self serving statement of the complainant cannot be accepted as the gospel truth and the same is not sufficient to prove that the Opposite Party had supplied 12.5 BHP motor pump set to the complainant instead  of 15 BHP.

 

7.                          As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 16.03.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.R.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Nirmal Singh Advocate for the  Opposite Party.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:16.03.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member