DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.45/27.03.2008<br /> Decided on : 27.02.2009<br /> <br /> Sh. Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh @ Kadi Singh S/o Sh.Santa Singh, resident of village Makhewala, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa.<br /> <br /> ..... Complainant.<br /> <br /> VERSUS<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.P.S.Enterprises @ J.P.Enterprises, Bathinda through its Proprietor Jagtar<br /> Singh, resident of Bibiwala Road, Nehru Colony, Shop No.5, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> 2.P.S.Enterprises through its Proprietor/Partner, Prem Sagar Bansal, Kothi<br /> No.433, Phase 2, Model Town, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ..... Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> .....<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Naval Kumar Goyal, Advocate counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party No.1.<br /> Opposite Party No.2 exparte.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.<br /> Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Sarat Chander, Member<br /> <br /> This complaint has been filed by Sh. Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh resident of village Makhewala, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa, against the opposite parties, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for replacement of photostat machine purchased by him or in the alternative for refund of its price paid by him and for award of compensation in the sum of Rs.30,000/-. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant may be described <br /> Contd........2<br /> : 2 :<br /> <br /> as under:-<br /> 2. That he purchased a photostat machine after securing loan from State Bank of Patiala for earning livelihood from opposite parties for a sum of Rs.62,114/- on 30.11.2006 vide bill No.167. The payment of cost of the photostat machine was made vide demand draft No.850523 dated 7.11.2006. The opposite party has given guarantee for successful functioning of the machine for a period of two years from the date of its sale. The complainant installed the machine at village Fateh Maluka, but it did not function properly. Thereafter, he approached the opposite parties and on their instructions he produced the same before them, but they returned his machine after a period of two months. As the machine did not work properly even thereafter, the complainant got it checked from a private mechanic and came to know that it is fitted with duplicate parts and for that reason, it cannot function properly by effecting repairs. It was further revealed that the cost of the machine is not more than Rs.10-12000/-, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they have indulged in unfair trade practice and the complainant has been subjected to physical and mental harassment. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. OP No.1 filed written version resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act, as such, complaint, is not maintainable; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint and that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it is denied for want of knowledge that complainant had purchased the photostat machine by securing loan from State Bank of Patiala, but it is specifically denied that he purchased the machine from the answering opposite party. It is submitted that answering opposite party and its proprietor Jagtar Singh has no concern with the machine and business run<br /> Contd........3<br /> : 3 :<br /> <br /> by the seller i.e. P.S. Enterprises in 433, Phase-11, Model Town, Bathinda. It is also submitted that answering opposite party is carrying on his business at Shop No.5, Kala Nehru Market, Bathinda in the name and style of “J.P.Enterprises”. He has been wrongly impleaded as party mentioning him as proprietor of P.S. Enterprises. It is also contended that telephone number of the seller has been written with hand on the bill, relied upon by the complainant, as 0164-2240771, whereas the said telephone number is installed in the office of the firm of the answering opposite party, as such, the same appears to have been forged by the complainant. It is also submitted that complainant has filed a complaint dated 25.1.2008 before the S.S.P., Bathinda, but the same was found to be false after investigation. It is denied that any guarantee was given by the answering opposite party to the complainant for proper running of the photostat machine or that it has been sold to him. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs.<br /> 4. OP No.2 was subsequently impleaded as a party as per the objection taken by OP No.1 in the written version, but it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.12.2008.<br /> 5. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered copy of bill Ext.C-1 issued by Proprietor of M/s P.S. Enterprises and his affidavit, Exhibit C-2, and copies of documents Ext.C-3 to C-5 before his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 made a statement that he does not want to produce any evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.<br /> 7. The complainant has produced on record quotation Ext.C-1 issued by proprietor of M/s P.S. Enterprises. He has further produced on<br /> Contd........4<br /> : 4 :<br /> <br /> record purchase invoice dated 30.11.2006 Ext.C-3 showing that he purchased Canon make photostat machine for a sum of Rs.62,114/- along with its accessories from the above said firm. Both these documents are purported to have been signed by Sh.Prem Sagar, Proprietor of OP No.2. He has further produced on record copy of reply given by Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Fatta Maloka, Ext.C-4 submitting therein that demand draft No.850523 was issued on 7.11.2006 in the sum of Rs.62114/- at the instance of the complainant in favour of M/s P.S. Enterprises at Bathinda. The complainant has also tendered in evidence letter dated 8.9.2008 written by Deputy General Manager of State Bank of Patiala Ext.C-5 to him in response of notice served under Right to Information that above said demand draft has been debited in account of OP No.2. As such, the complainant has not alleged any role played by OP No.1 or its proprietor. The plea taken by OP No.1 regarding his role in the sale of the photostat machine to the complainant has not been controverted by any evidence by the complainant, as such, liability cannot be fastened upon OP No.1 i.e. Sh.Jagtar Singh, Proprietor of M/s “J.P.Enterprises”, Bathinda. The above said oral and documentary evidence produced on record by the complainant has gone uncontroverted, as OP No.2 has failed to contest the same. The cause of action to file the complaint has accrued to the complainant after he installed the machine and it did not function properly. The complainant has purchased the machine on 30.11.2006 and has filed the complaint before the Consumer Forum on 27.3.2008, as such, complaint is well within the period of limitation. The complainant has purchased the machine for use at village Fateh Maluka, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is established by the affidavit of the complainant that his machine has failed to function properly despite repair effected by OP No.2 i.e. Prem Sagar Bansal, proprietor of M/s P.S. Enterprises.<br /> 8. In the light of the above discussion, we have come to the<br /> Contd........5<br /> : 5 :<br /> <br /> conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and no purpose would be served by giving direction for getting the repair of the photostat machine.<br /> 9. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for giving direction to OP No.2, Sh.Prem Sagar Bansal, Proprietor of M/s P.S. Enterprises to refund the cost of the photostat machine, paid by the complainant in the sum of Rs.62,114/- along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 30.11.2006 till date of actual payment which he shall pay within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The complainant shall return the old photostat machine in question to the OP No.2.<br /> However, complaint against OP No.1 Sh. Jagtar Singh proprietor of OP No.1 is hereby dismissed.<br /> The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced:<br /> 27.02.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, <br /> Member. Member.