DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.388 of 2016
Date of institution: 28.06.2016 Date of decision : 03.04.2017
Sahil Makkar, Sole Proprietor M/s. S.M. Enterprises, Plot No.356, First Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-IX, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
M/s. Unicon Industries through Sunil Kumar, its Prop. RZ-137/1, Gali No.2, Durga Park, Nasipur Road, New Delhi-45.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Sanjay Verma, counsel for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Sahil Makkar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant started his small scale business of manufacturing of Plastic Packing Material under the name and style of M/s. S.M. Enterprises in a rented accommodaion at Industrial Area, Phase-IX, Mohali to earn his livelihood. For running of this business, the complainant purchased one Automatic Vacuum Forming Machine from the OP vide bill dated 25.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,19,300/-. The payment was made by the complainant through cheques and demand draft. At the time of sale of the machine, the OP assured the complainant that it is perfectly alright and the OP had also given oral warranty of one year from the date of purchase. However, nothing was given in writing by the OP in this regard. The machine did not work right from the day one. The complainant contacted the OP and intimated it about the defective machine. Despite assurance, the OP failed to send the technician to check the machine. As the complainant was suffering loss, he got the machine checked from M/s. S.K. Control System, Sector 70, Mohali and the defects as mentioned in Para No.4 from (i) to (xi) were pointed out by the mechanic. As the OP was not responding to his calls and the fact that the complainant was suffering losses, he spent Rs.1,06,159/- from his own pocket for purchase of parts as well as repair charges of the machine. The complainant had also paid Rs.50,000/- on account of rent of the premises for the period January 2016 to May, 2016 without there being any work due to non function of the machine. The complainant also paid salary to the tune of Rs.33,030/- for four months to his workers who were employed for running the business. The complainant would have earned Rs.1,50,000/- which he could not due to non working of machine. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh on account of mental harassment and Rs.30,000/- for litigation expenses. The total amount on all these counts comes to Rs.4,69,189/-. The complainant ultimately sent letter dated 15.05.2016 to the OP to make good of the losses suffered by him. Despite receipt of this letter, the OP has failed to respond to the same. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay him Rs.4,69,189/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the machine till actual payment.
3. The notice sent to the OP received back from the postal authorities with report of refusal. Thus, as per provisions of Section 28-A (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2016.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex. CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2; copies of rent agreement Ex.C-1; bill Ex.C-2; VAT receipt Ex.C-3; carriage receipt Ex.C-4; bills Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-16; attendance register of workers Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-20; letter and postal receipt Ex.C-21 and Ex.C-22.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that despite oral warranty of one year the OP did not depute its technician to repair the machine. The OP even did not respond to the telephonic calls of the complainant and the machine remained idle due to which the complainant suffered financial loss in his business as well undergone mental agony and tension. When the OP did not respond to his calls, he finding no other option got the machine repaired from the market by spending Rs.1,06,159/- from his own pocket for purchase of parts as well as repair charges. Thus, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
6. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the complainant and heard the learned counsel for the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one Automatic Vacuum Forming Machine from the OP on 25.12.2015. The complainant himself in Para No.3 has stated that he was orally informed by the OP that the machine carries warranty of one from the date of purchase. However, the complainant has failed to prove this assertion by any documentary evidence. In the absence of any documentary evidence regarding warranty of one year of the machine, such a bald assertion of the complainant cannot be relied upon. Hence, we hold that the complainant has not been able to prove his case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
7. In view of our above discussion, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 16.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 03.04.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
