Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/36/2016

Dilbag Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New Punjab Sanitary & Pipe Store - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                

Consumer Complaint No.      :  36/2016        

Date of decision                     :  30.09.2016

Dalbag Singh S/o Gurbaksh Singh R/o Village Jagatpur, Tehsil Balachuar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.                                                                                                               ….Complainant

    Versus

1.       New Punjab Sanitary & Pipe Store, Matewara Road Rahon (Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar).

2.       Crompton Greaves, Head Office, 3^rd Floor, Express Building 9-10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Near ITO Crossing, New Delhi – 110002, India.

                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Sh.Jarnail Singh, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.S.L. Jain, Advocate

QUORUM:

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

 ORDER

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.       In brief the case of the complainant is that on 20.02.2016, he purchased a Submersible Pump 15 HP CG Sr. No.DIWPA 0614 Crompton Company for Rs.40512/- including tax, from OP No.1.  He also purchased other goods amounting to Rs.84250/-, but only slip for the same was issued instead of issuing bill.  At the time of purchase of aforesaid goods, it was verbally settled that if any defects occurred in the goods then the same will be replaced or repaired.  It is also settled that regarding the same, the purchaser can talk directly to Crompton Company through Online.  Complainant has installed the Submersible Pump Set in his land situated at Village Mehndipur, Hadbast No.192, Tehsil Balachaur, but due to defect in the said submersible, the same was not worked properly.  Complainant had to irrigate wheat crop in eight acre of land and Maize in two acres of land.  This land is of the complainant and his brothers.  Due to defect in Pump Set, on 04.03.2016, complainant talked with Crompton Company, through his mobile and on 05.03.2016, the company has sent its mechanic from Hoshiarpur.  After complete checking of submersible pump set, the mechanic certified that 12-17-22 ampere was required in the said submersible pump set, it is also disclosed that it required equal phase ampere.  Mechanic has disclosed that motor set was defective.  As per mechanic, on 06.04.2015, the complainant take the submersible pump set to OP No.1 for its repair.  After repeated visit, the OP No.1 neither repaired his submersible pump set nor OP No.1 returned the same.  Due to defect in said submersible pump set, complainant has suffered loss of eight acres wheat crop and two acres maize crop because complainant was having only one submersible for irrigation.  Now, OP No.1, instead of giving the complainant submersible pump set has threatened the complainant and told that OP No.1 will serve Court Summons to him.  He, therefore, prayed that OP No.1 be directed to provide submersible pump set in working condition or to refund the price of the same and Op No.1 also be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Complainant has also claimed for litigation expenses and compensation for loss of crops.

2.       Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement stating therein that complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant has got no cause of action to file the complaint.  On merits, it is submitted that complainant has purchased one Crompton Greaves submersible pump from OP No.1 for which bill of the purchase alongwith warranty card was given to complainant.  No goods were sold to complainant without bill.  Complainant was given warranty card for the replacement or repair of any part of the submersible pump in case of any complaint.  No term and conditions to this was agreed orally as alleged.  Complainant was at liberty to interact directly with the manufacturer.  OPs are not aware of the ownership of the complainant of the land where the submersible pump is got installed.  The area of land being cultivated by the complainant also not known to the OPs.  Complainant brought the submersible pump to the premises of OP No.1 as the same has developed a snag.  In terms of the warranty the complainant was required to hand over the defective submersible pump set at nearest service centre of OP No.2 which is located at Sainik Vihar Gali No.3, Dhillwan Road, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.  The complainant showed his inability to deliver the defective submersible pump set at service centre personally and requested the OP No.1 to get the same repaired from the service centre and further agreed to pay the expenses to be incurred by OP No.1 in delivering the defective submersible pump set at the service centre and to bring the same to Rahon.  The submersible pump set was got repaired from the service centre by OP No.1 and the same is lying at their business premises. The complainant was informed well in time after the said pump was brought by OP No.1 to its business premises from the service centre on mobile.  The dispute arose only on the point that the complainant refused to pay the actual expenses incurred by OP No.1 and complainant did not take delivery of the submersible pump after the same was got repaired.  The Op No.1 also served a registered notice on complainant on 22.04.2016 requesting the complainant to take delivery of the same.  It is the complainant who is at fault and has failed to take delivery of the submersible pump.  Complainant was never threatened as alleged nor any such talk ever took place.  It is prayed that complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.       In support of complaint, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

4.       Learned Counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit of Pritam Singh Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence. 

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record  and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of learned counsels for the parties.

6.       From the entire record i.e. pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased submersible pump from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.40512/- vide warranty terms and condition Ex.OP-4 as per invoice Ex.C-1/OP-3.  The said submersible pump became defective as it developed snag.  In terms of warranty, the complainant was required to hand over the defective submersible pump set at the nearest service center of OP No.2 which is situated at Sainik Vihar Gali No.3, Dhilwan Road, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.  However, the complainant approached the Op No.1 and expressed his un-ability to deliver the submersible pump to the said service centre personally and requested OP No.1 to get the same repaired from service centre of OP No.1, as deposed by Sh.Pritam Singh, Prop. of OP No.1 in his affidavit Ex.OP-A and this fact was not rebutted by the complainant. Resultantly, the OP collected the submersible pump of the complainant and got the same repaired from service centre of Op No.1.  As per terms and conditions of the warranty Ex.OP-4, the customer is pre-pay the freight charges for bringing the submersible pump from the premises of complainant to the service centre.  The OP got repaired the submersible pump from their service centre as is evident from challan Ex.OP-1 dated 14.04.2016, but the complainant is at fault who did not take the delivery of the same after its repair from OP No.1, even after the service of registered notice dated 22.04.2016 Ex.OP-2 nor the complainant paid freight charges to the OPs No.1 for brining the submersible pump from the premises of the complainant to the service centre of OP No.1.

7.       Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 qua the complainant regarding repair of the submersible pump and whatever the complainant suffered loss was due to fault and negligence on the part of the complainant for not taking the delivery of the submersible pump.

8.       Resultantly, we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 9.       Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  30.09.2016

 

                                                          (BHUPINDER SINGH)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member