THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 84 of 2015
Date of Institution : 5.2.2015
Date of Decision : 15.07.2015
Kulbir Singh Sole prop. Of M/s. Indo Foreign Machinery , Batala Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Super-Tech Engineers through its Prop/Partner/Office Incharge, 38 East Mohan Nagar, 100ft Road, Industrial Area, Amritsar
M/s. K.P.T. (Power Tools) through its Prop/Partner/office Incharge, A63/1, Phase I, Mariana Industrial Area, New Delhi
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party No. 1 : Sh. Kanwaljit Singh,Prop
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Service Engineer
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Kulbir Singh under the provisions of the
-2-
Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he being the proprietor of M/s. Indo Foreign Machinery purchased one KPT Chopsaw machine manufactured by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 253 dated 25.10.2013 for a sum of Rs. 8250/-. According to the complainant after 10 days of purchase of the machine, it created problems and every time it was given to opposite party No.1 for its repair . Opposite party No.1 after making minor adjustments handed over the same to the complainant. On 3.10.2014 the machine became inoperative and the same was handed over to opposite party No.1 but opposite party No.1 has refused to listen to the requests of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to exchange the defective machine with new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 8250/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite party No.1 in its written version has denied that after the purchase of the machine by the complainant, it created problems after 10 days of its use . It was denied that on 3.10.2014 the machine became inoperative due to fault either manufacturing or technical. It was denied that machine was handed over to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 assured that they would get the machine exchanged from the company. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
-3-
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has denied that after the purchase of the machine it created problems after 10 days of its use and every time it was given to opposite party No.1 for its repair. It was denied that complainant requested opposite party No.1 to change the machine being defective and having manufacturing fault. It was denied that on 3.10.2014 the said machine became inoperative due to fault either manufacturing or technical. It was denied that opposite party No.1 assured that he will get the machine exchanged with new one from the company as the warranty was alive at that time . It was submitted that as per warranty card, if product became defective due to faulty material or workmanship within 6 months from the date of purchase, company is liable to repair the produce free of charge within warranty period. Company is not liable if the product has been misused or has been carelessly handed or willfully damaged . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 & C-2, copy of bill dated 25.10.2013 Ex.C-3.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh Ex.OP1/1.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Gurpreet singh Ex.OP2/1.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the opposite parties and have appreciated the
-4-
evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and opposite parties.
8. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant firm purchased one KPT Chopsaw Machine manufactured by opposite party No.2, from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 25.10.2013 Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 8749/-. The complainant submitted that the said machine created problem after 10 days of its use and it was given to opposite party No.1 for repair. Opposite party No.1 after making minor adjustment , set right the machine and returned to the complainant. But the machine did not work properly and so many times, the complainant brought the matter in the notice of opposite party. However they set right the machine but it did not work properly. Lastly on 3.10.2014 the said machine became inoperative and the same was handed over to opposite party No.1 and the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the machine with new one as the warranty was alive. But the opposite party No.1 refused to listen to the request of the complainant. Rather they stated that opposite party No.2 company is not issuing instructions for the exchange of the machine in question. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant purchased KPT Chopsaw Machine from opposite party No.1 vide invoice Ex.C-3 dated 25.10.2013
-5-
for a sum of Rs.8749/- with warranty of six months. Opposite parties denied that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with any complaint in the machine or that after minor adjustment opposite party No.1 set right the machine and handed over to the complainant. They also denied that on 3.10.2014 the machine became inoperative and the complainant handed over the machine to opposite party No.1 . Opposite party No.1 further denied that they assured the complainant that they would get the machine exchange with new one from the company. Further, the warranty for the machine was for 6 months and opposite parties were not liable to repair the machine or to exchange the same with new one after the warranty period . The complainant has stated that lastly on 3.10.2014 the machine became inoperative and they handed over the same to opposite party No.1. Opposite parties have denied this fact rather they stated that the complainant never approached the opposite parties on 3.10.2014 nor handed over the machine to opposite party No.1. Moreover, the warranty expired on 25.4.2014. Opposite parties are not liable to repair or exchange the machine free of cost. Opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased one KPT Chopsaw Machine which was manufactured by opposite party No.2, from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 25.10.2013
-6-
Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 8749/- with a warranty of six months only. No doubt the complainant submitted that the said machine did not work properly after 10 days of its use and they approached opposite party No.1, who after minor adjustment set right the machine and handed over the same to the complainant. This averment of the complainant has been denied by the opposite parties. The complainant could not produce any document in the form of job sheet or receipt etc., to prove that they handed over the machine to opposite party No.1 and they repaired the same with minor adjustment. The complainant further alleged that thereafter so many times the complainant approached opposite party No.1 with the same defect in the machine and they repaired the same with minor adjustment. Opposite parties have totally denied these facts. The complainant could not produce any cogent evidence in the form of job sheet or receipt, etc to prove that the machine became defective and the same was set right by opposite party No.1. The complainant has further alleged that lastly on 3.10.2014 the machine became defective and he handed over the same to opposite party No.1 with the request to replace the same with new one. But the complainant could not produce any evidence in the form of receipt issued by opposite party No.1 to prove that he handed over the machine to opposite party No.1 for repair or for replacement with new one. Opposite parties have specifically denied all these averments of the complainant.
11. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the machine has warranty of six
-7-
months only from the date of its purchase and the said warranty has expired on 25.4.2014. So the opposite parties were not liable to repair or replace the machine of the complainant after the expiry of the warranty period, without charges.
12. So from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. As such the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
15.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
