Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/386

M/s Plati India Pvt Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s S.K.Engineering - Opp.Party(s)

Hitender Atri

26 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:386 dated 06.10.2022.                                                         Date of decision: 26.10.2023.

 

M/s. Plati India Pvt. Ltd., B-XXIX, 105/1G/1, Oswal Agro Complex, G.T. Road, Giaspura, LLudhiana-141003 through its authorized representative Mr. Hitender Atri S/o. Sh. Inderjit Sharma, R/o. Village Sultania, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana. Ph. 9814123642. hitenderatri25gmail.com.                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. S.K. Engineering, Plot No.7/9, Reru Chowk, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar-141012, Punjab through its Prop/authorized signatory/Managing person.
2. Mr. Sameer, Prop./authorized signatory/Managing Person of    M/s. S.k. Engineering, Plot No.7/9, Reru Chowk, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar-141012, Punjab                                                                                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Hitender Atri, authorized representative.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a private limited company, who purchased a paint booth with pump motor HSN/SAC 84 of Rs.1,71,000/- from the opposite parties vide invoice No.T/21-22/156 dated 04.03.2022. The complainant paid advance amount of rs.1,55,00/- on 09.02.2020 through NEFT and remaining payment was to be paid after successful installation and working of the said product. The complainant stated that when the OPs delivered the product in the month of March 2022 and installed the same at its premises, then the complainant shocked to see that the installed product/paint booth was totally different from the actual product which to complainant before its purchase. Even the colour of the installed product was different and was having lot of manufacturing deficiencies. The complainant made a complaint to the installation mechanic who asked to move complaint with opposite parties for replacement of the product. The complainant made complain to the opposite parties regarding deficiency and manufacturing defect in the product, which are reproduces as under:-

                   A)      The paint-booth was having lot of vibration

                   B)      The paint-booth’s noise was excessive and unacceptable by                        the complainant

                   C)      Blower design was defective and suction was not up to mark

                   D)      Water curtain splash issue on the components during pain                (during control water pressure)

The complainant further stated that after lodging the complaint, the opposite parties falsely assured him to replace the product as soon as possible and as and when new product is manufactured by them but they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Even the opposite parties did not do the needful despite telephone calls and whatsapp message of the complainant. The complainant had to purchase another new paint booth from K.S.W. India Private Ltd. for an amount of Rs.2,21,250/- on 02.07.2022. As such, the complainant had suffered huge loss and expenses due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- along with compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-

2.                Notice was sent to the OPs through registered post but none turned up for OPs despite service of notice and as such, the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.12.2022.

3.                In support of its claim, Sh. Hitender Atri, authorized representative of the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Aadhar card Hitender Atri, Ex. C2 is the copy of resolution, Ex. C3, Ex. C4 is the copy detail of payment given in advance, Ex. C5 is the copy of invoice, Ex. C6 to Ex. C8 are the photographs, Ex. C9 to Ex. C12 are the copies of whatsapp messages, Ex. C13 is the invoice of new purchased paint booth, Ex. C14 is the copy of payment of purchase of new paint booth and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                The exparte evidence lead by the complainant has gone un-rebutted on the file. Even otherwise, it inspires confidence. The complainant purchased a paint booth with pump motor HSN/SAC 84 for a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- from the opposite parties vide invoice dated 04.03.2022 Ex. C5 and made an advance payment of Rs.1,55,000/- on 09.02.2022 through NEFT (Ex. C3, Ex. C4). It is the settled law that whenever a brand new product is sold to the customer, there is an implied contract carrying a guarantee that the product being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained. Section 2(xx) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word “Express Guarantee” which means any statement, affirmation or promise made by seller or service provider relating to a product or a service which he affirms to be true and genuine and if the product does not confirm the statement made therein. It is evident in the case in hand that the moment when the paint booth was installed at the premises of the complainant, the complainant found it to be an manufacturing deficiencies in the same and this fact was immediately brought to the notice of the installation mechanic of the opposite parties. Even the opposite parties were made aware of these defects. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite parties and also contacted through telephone as well as through whatsapp chatting (Ex. C9 to Ex. C12) but the opposite parties did not do the needful. The unrebutted evidence goes to show that the opposite parties had sold a defective paint booth to the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(47) (E) of the Consumer Protection Act. It appears that the intentions of the opposite parties was to cheat the complainant since the very inception of the transaction of sale. The contention of the complainant that he has suffered mental agony, pain and harassment is tenable. The complainant was compelled to purchase new paint booth from K.S.W. India Private Ltd. on 02.07.2022 for Rs.2,21,250/- vide tax invoice Ex. C13 so that earning of livelihood is not scuttled.

6.                Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for the liability of the product manufacturer which is reproduced hereunder:-

“84. Liability of product manufacturer: (1) A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if—

1. the product contains a manufacturing defect; or
2. the product is defective in design; or
3. there is a deviation from manufacturing specifications; or
4. the product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any harm or any warning regarding improper or incorrect usage.

(2) A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action even if he proves that he was not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty of a product.

7.                In the given set of circumstances, the case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 84 of the Act and the product liability action initiated by him against the opposite parties on account of sale of product having manufacturing defect i.e. the product having lot of vibration, excessive and unacceptable noise, defective blower design and suction not up to mark as well as water curtain splash issue on the component during pain (during control water pressure) is sustainable.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with an order that the complainant will hand over the paint booth with pump motor 84 to the opposite parties in its existing condition within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of paint booth from the complainant, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of complaint till date of its actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Liability of the opposite parties shall be held joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                        (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.10.2023.

Gobind Ram.