Complaint No: 173 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 17.05.2019.
Date of order: 05.02.2024.
Gaurav Sharma aged about 32 years Son of Davinder Sharma resident of Kahnuwan Road, opposite Marwaha Hospital, Batala, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur.
…..Complainant.
VERSUS
M/s Shree Ganesh Electrowards, Smadh Road, Near R.R. Bawa D.A.V. College for Girls, Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, through its Authorized Signatory.
….Opposite party.
Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Vikram Kapil, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Sumeet Narang, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Gaurav Sharma, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M/s Shree Ganesh Electrowards (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 15.09.2018 the complainant has purchased one water purified from the opposite party vide Invoice No. 5H/18-19/0274 dated 15.09.2018 worth of Rs.22,900/-. It is pleaded that from the very beginning the said product was not working property as required and found defective, for which the complainant intimated the opposite party in time and the opposite party gave the assurance to the complainant and told the complainant to leave the water purifier at the shop of the opposite party and the opposite party will remove the defect as earlier as possible. It is further pleaded that after 2-3 days the opposite party returned the water purifier to the complainant after showing that the defect has been removed but later on it was found that the same was wrong assertion by the opposite party as the water purifier of the complainant was still not in working condition. It is alleged that the complainant also informed the opposite party and requested to send the mechanic and to remove the defect of the water purifier but all in vain and the same is still in not in working condition. It is further alleged that the complainant has visited so many times to the opposite party and also requested the opposite party many times to solve the problem of the water purifier but the opposite party did not pay any heed towards the requests of the complainant. The complainant also requested the opposite party to replace the same by the opposite party refused the same and also refused to solve the problem of the water purifier. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to solve the problem of the complainant as mentioned above and also ordered to pay amount i.e. of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith future interest as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges with costs in the interest of justice and fair play. It is further prayed that pass any other such order, as this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that the present complaint is nothing but sheer abuse process of law as the opposite party has no concern with service of product in question as it is separately dealt by company outlet at their authorized service center situated at Bhullar Road, Batala. It is further pleaded that the complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer as defined under Act and all alleged allegations as alleged in the complaint are vague and general in nature and not specified and affidavit filed by the complainant is wrong, false and based upon the concocted story. It is further pleaded that when the complainant had purchased the articles in question, it was properly checked and seen by the complainant and after their satisfaction, the articles in question was purchased by the complainant. Moreover, declaration has been made over bill that the said article in question is under warranty from its authorized service centers of Company. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite party is running the authorized retail counter under the name and style of M/s Shree Ganesh Electrowards. Moreover, it is well within the knowledge of the complainant that authorized service center is situated at Bhullar Road, Batala under the name and style of M/s Guru Nanak Service Center, Batala and its toll free number was/is also mentioned in box of the article in question by Company and the said number is also mentioned in online site of Company named as Hindustan Unilever Service Centre and the complainant has neither visited nor lodged any complaint before authorized center of Company if the complainant has been facing any problem as alleged in this complaint. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is premature and is liable to be dismissed and the answering opposite party has been falsely implicated in this complaint without any reason, rhyme. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is vague and general in nature and has been filed with ulterior motive to harass the answering opposite party as it is no where mentioned in the complaint that in which manner the article in question was/is not working properly and defective in nature.
On merits, the opposite party have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of Gaurav Sharma, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed an affidavit of Sh. Ajay Sehdev, (Proprietor of M/s Shree Ganesh Electrowards, Smadh Road, Batala) alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one water purifier vide tax invoice Ex.C1, but from the very beginning the water purifier had one defect or the other and opposite party was intimated time and again regarding the defect but the defect in the water purifier was not rectified inspite of the fact that legal notice copy of which Ex.C2 was served upon the opposite party.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that the defect in the water purified was to be rectified by the authorized service centre situated at Bhullar Road, Batala and the answering opposite party is only retailer outlet and defect if any is to be rectified by the company or the service centre outlet.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, post receipt Ex.C3. However, opposite party has not adduced any evidence.
12. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased one water purifier vide tax invoice Ex.C1 on15.09.2018 and the complainant had got service legal notice to the opposite party on 28.11.2018. The only disputed issue is whether the water purified sold by the opposite party is having defect or that opposite party is liable to solve the problem.
13. Perusal of tax invoice Ex.C1 shows that it is nowhere mentioned that as to which company has manufactured the water purifier allegedly sold by the opposite party. Even there is no mentioned of any warranty or guarantee and terms and conditions. Only on declaration is mentioned on the tax invoice that "No Warranty On Burnt Or Damaged Product All Products Warranty Paid From Its Authorised Centers" but it is nowhere mentioned what is the warranty period and what is the address of the authorized service centre. We are of the view that if the product purchased by the complainant is not providing service as promised in that case every prudent man will definitely approached the retailer who has sold the product but in the present case the opposite party has filed vague reply by mentioning the address of some Bhullar Road, Batala whereas it is stated at bar by the counsel for the complainant that no such service centre existed at Bhullar Road, Batala. The evidence on record produced by the complaint has remained unrebutted as the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to rebut the same. Accordingly, failure to rectify the defect in the water purified amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
14. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to rectify the defect in the water purifier purchased by the complainant and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental tension, harassment and costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order till realization.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 05, 2024 Member.
*YP*
