DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No.150 of 7-7-2009<br /> Decided on: 3-9-2009<br /> <br /> <br /> M/s Khalsa Tyre Service Tinkoni Chowk, Near Mann Petrol Pump, Bathinda, through its Sole Prop. Avtar Singh aged about 47 years son of Shri Karam Singh son of Sh. Mit Singh, resident of Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .........Complianant.<br /> <br /> Versus <br /> <br /> M/s G.P.N.Machinery Works, B-29/1706, Street No.10 Chimny Road, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana-3 Punjab, through its Prop/partner.<br /> <br /> .......Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer<br /> Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date.<br /> <br /> Present <br /> <br /> For the complainant : Ashok Gupta, Advocate. <br /> Opposite Party is already exparte.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George,President.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. This compliant has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( here-in-after referred to as 'Act'), with allegations against opposite party that he had agreed to purchase for Rs. One lakh equipment for balancing of wheel dated on 1-3-2008 from opposite party and he placed an order with the opposite party at Bathinda. He also paid an amount of Rs. 34,000/- in cash to opposite party at Bathinda and he got deposited Rs. 5000/- more for transportation of this machine, but no receipt was given. At that time the representative<br /> of opposite party told him that the machine will be installed within one week of depositing of Rs.34,000/- and emaining payment will be taken at the time of installation. In july 2008, opposite party installed one wheel balancing machine at the premises of the Complainant but he was not provided any documents and when he started working on it, the machine was not found working well. He made a complaint to opposite party and opposite party assured that all the defects will be removed and the machine will be replaced or repaired to his satisfaction. The mechanic visited him but he could not remove the defect. Opposite party vide sale Invoice, on 17-11-2008 sold another machine for a consideration of Rs. 1,19,600/- and told the complainant that for the smooth running of the above said machine, one more machine named Tendic Rim Staightner had to be purchased for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The Complainant in hope of getting good results, he agreed to purchase the same and paid Rs.50,000/- more to the agent of the opposite party, but the above named machine was not supplied to him.He raised protest to opposite party and opposite party issued one cheque dated 25-3-2009 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/-and promised to refund the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- and also the earlier deposited amount of Rs. 1,19,600/- as price of the above said machine, with interest but to no avail. The machine purchased vide sale Invoice dated 17-11-2008 did not work properly. He made several requests to the opposite party to rectify the defect as the machine was totally unworkable, but his requests were not acceded to, despite the fact that he spent huge amount of<br /> Rs. 1,19,600/- for the purchase of wheel balancing machine and also spent further amount of Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of one more machine named Tendic Rim Staightner on the assurance of the opposite party, as a result of which, omplainant had to undergo mental agony harasment, botheration and inconvenience and he has claimed refund of the aforesaid amount of machines supplied to him, which are found to be totally unworkable and also claimed Rs.20,000/- which was not returned to him, which was taken as consideration for the second machine named Tendic Rim Staightner and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with reasonable amount of litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Despite due service, opposite party did not appear to contest the allegations. The Complainant led exparte evidence and he produced on record, his own Affidavit Ex.C-1, Sale Invoice, dated 17-11-2008 Ex.C-3, Photo Copy of order dated 1-3-2008 Ex.C-2, Photo Copy of Retail Invoice dated 17-11-2008 Ex.C-3 for an amount of Rs. ,1,19,600/-, Photo Copy of letter dated 18-11-2008 Ex.C-4, Photo Copy of Service Report Ex.C-5, Legal Notice Ex.C-6, Postal Receipt Ex.C-7, Photo Copy of Cheque dated 25-3-2009 Ex.C-8 for Rs.30,000/-, Bank Deposit Slip Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10.<br /> 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant who has urged that complainant purchased a wheel balancing machine from opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 1,19,600/- vide sale invoice Ex.C-3 which did not work properly. He made several requests to the opposite party to remove the defects in the machine so as to make the said machine workable but his requests were not acceded. The mechanic came to do the job but the machine remained unworkable. The learned counsel urged that the poor Complainant has been cheated by opposite party by supplying a totally defective wheel balancing machine for huge sum of Rs. 1,19,600/-.<br /> 4. After going through,the Affidavit of complainant Avtar Singh Ex.C-1 which remained uncontroverted by evidence of the opposite party, as the opposite party did not appear to contest the allegations. It is proved that the complainant purchased the wheel balancing machine for a consideration of Rs. 1,19,600/- vide Invoice Ex.c-3 of 17-11-2008 from opposite party but it went out of order. Opposite Party despite giving assurance to the complainant failed to replace the same with a new one and also failed to make it workable, despite the fact that complainant paid a huge amount and he could not work with the machine even for a short time. The complainant, thus is entitled for replacement of the machine with a new one of the same quality or in the alternative refund of its price i.e. Rs, 1,19,600/- alongwith interest @ 9 % P.A. w.e.f. 7-7-2009 i.e.from the date of institution of the complaint till realization of this amount. The Complainant has suffered unnecessary mental agony harassment, botheration and inconvenience and therefore, the Complainant is also entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The Complainant has been forced to file the present complaint and therefore, he is entitled for cost of the forced litigation to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 5. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 6. The copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced GEORGE)<br /> 3-9-2009 PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER <br />