Haryana

Panchkula

CC/102/2016

DIWAN CHAND PURI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NEW VERMA &CO. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                               

Consumer Complaint No

:

102 of 2016

Date of Institution

:

29.04.2016

Date of Decision

:

16.08.2016

 

Sh.Diwan Chand Puri, R/o House No.563, Sector-10, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       M/s New Verma & Co., SCF-55, Sector-9, Panchkula-134109.

2.       M/s Panini Sales, House No.309, Sector-8, Panchkula-134109.

3.       M/s Gargsons India Pvt. Ltd., 5 HDFC Industrial Estates, Phase-1, Kundli, Distt. Sonepat (Haryana)-131028.

 

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Mr.Varun Katyal, Adv., for the Ops No.1 to 3.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

  1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Anupam Make Sink (Model code 304B 20”x45”) from the OP No.1 vide bill No.8742 dated 05.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.14,512/- (Annexure C-1). After six months, the sink developed 8-10 spots with white layers around it which had become black with the white layers making its surface defaced. The complainant informed the Op No.1 about the white layers who advised him to inform Op No.2. In the month of February, 2016, the Ops No.1 and 2 visited the house of the complainant and Op No.2 attributed the spots to the standing drops of water & clorine in the water but could not satisfy the complainant as per their version. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 and 2 many times but they neither suggested any remedial measures nor informed the Op No.3 regarding the defect in sink. Thereafter, the complainant sent a mail dated 09.03.2016 to OP No.3 regarding the defect in sink but to no avail. Then the complainant requested the Op No.3 telephonically and one Sukhvinder Singh, who attended the call, asked the complainant to send a copy of mail dated 09.03.2016 alongwith copy of bill & a photo of spots appearing in the sink through mail on his ID and the complainant sent all the documents through mail on 21.03.2016. One officer-Ms.Shallu of Op No.3 offered the replacement on the terms that: no labour and material charges should be borne by the Op No.3 and first give the damaged sink for taking the replacement thereafter. The complainant tried to convince her that the second condition was not acceptable as the kitchen was functional and the family of the complainant would be in serious trouble if sink was removed as replacement would take time. The complainant requested her to refund the cost of sink and the complainant would get the needful done at his own convenient time but the Op No.3 sent the powder for treatment of spots. The treatment of spots was also ineffective and the complainant informed the Op No.3 vide mail dated 29.03.2016 but the Op No.3 did not take the complaint of complainant seriously or attended it properly. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
  2. The counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3 made a separate statement in which he adopted the written statement filed on behalf of Op No.3.
  3. The Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that after receiving the complaint from the complainant and the Ops No.1 & 2 through its employee Sanjeev Girotra visited the house of the complainant and inspected the sink & found that there were 6-8 white spots on the sink but the same were developed due to the salts in water and standing drops of water which were temporary and could be removed. It is submitted that the OP No.3 also sent the powder for sink free of costs. It is submitted that the complainant was advised to keep the sink clean for removing the white spots. It is submitted that Op No.3 offered the complainant to replace the sink even though there was no manufacturing defect in the sink as per the information of Ops No.1 and 2. It is submitted that no guarantee or warrantee being provided by the OP No.1 for the model of sink but as a goodwill gesture, the Op No.3 offered to replace the sink. It is denied that the complainant was asked to provide the damaged sink first before replacement. It is submitted that the complainant was advised to get the new sink from the Op No.1 and also requested to return the old sink within a reasonable time after getting the new sink to the Op No.1 but the complainant refused to return the old sink. It is submitted that the complainant instead of taking the delivery of the new sink, demanded the price of sink to be refunded and that too without giving the sink. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
  4. Both the parties have adduced their evidence. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 has tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
  5. Heard. The complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for Ops No.1 to 3 reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.
  6. The precise grievance of the complainant is that the stains which appeared on the sink, were not removeable; while the OPs averred the contrary and elaborated the averment by indicating that the complainant was advised to keep the sink clean.
  7. The averment made by the complainant is supported by the expert opinion Annexure C1/14 of a duly qualified Assistant Design Engineer (who retired from the Punjab Govt. Service) to the effect that “these spots are due to manufacturing defect in the sink”. There is no expert opinion/documentation produced by the OPs on record. The nature of spots is evident from the perusal of photographs of C7, C8 and C9.
  8. The complainant has also placed on record brochure which announces a life time warranty for the product in question. That being so, the OPs cannot at all wriggle out of the liability to replace the sink which had been purchased by the complainant from the dealer/OP.
  9. In the light of the discussion recorded in the preceding paras of this order, we would allow the complaint and direct the OPs to: -

(i)      Replace the sink purchased by the complainant by deputing an employee, conversant with the exercise, to remove the defective sink and replace it with a new sink. The employee would be deputed by OPs to the house of the complainant after ascertaining the availability of the latter (i.e. the complainant) at the house;

(ii)          Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the compensation for deficiency in service and harassment;

(iii)         Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation. 

  1. The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

16.08.2016        S.P.ATTRI        ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER          MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.