Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/585

Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parkash Diesels Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Simrandeep Singh

26 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                      Complaint No: 585 of 26.08.2014

                                                                                              Date of Decision: 26.03.2015

                                                                                                                   

Randhir Singh s/o Sh.Surjit Singh, resident of Village Sehjo Majra, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

Versus 

1. Parkash Diesels Pvt. Ltd., foundry Nagar, Agra-282 006, through its Authorized Person.

2. Satwinder Singh Pawar, Authorized person of the Company at Ludhiana, Parkash Bio Power, B-XX-109, Maya Nagar, Near Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

 

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                     Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                     Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Simardeep Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.M.S.Maan, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh.Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for OP2.  

 

                   

                        ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Randhir Singh s/o Sh.Surjit Singh, resident of Village Sehjo Majra, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Parkash Diesels Pvt. Ltd., foundry Nagar, Agra, through its Authorized Person and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to remove the defects in the Genset or to replace the same or return the price of the same to the complainant, to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation for committing negligence and deficiency in service and for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased one Parkash Bio Gas Generating Set Model no.PNG-15BG on 18.09.13 from OP2 for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid, through draft no.371858 of Central Corporation Bank. The OPs company gave a quotation in this regard and the complainant had taken the loan from the bank by submitting the said quotation. On 26.09.13, the employee of the OPs installed the generator set and the Ops promised the complainant that it is working 8-9 hours per day, but it is only worked about 2-3 hours. On 29.09.13 the complainant made complaint with the OPs about the improper working of genset and when the complainant did not get any response from the Ludhiana branch, then the complainant had called at Parkash Diesel Pvt. Ltd., but the OPs demanded Rs.25,000/- from the complainant and complainant told them that he is ready to pay the balance amount, but firstly they have to remove all the defects from the Genset, but with no effect. Thereafter, the complainant several times requested the Ops to repair the genset and do the needful for making it in good condition. Complainant also sent mails in this respect, but all in vain. Thereafter in the first week of July, 2014, the OPs flatly refused to accede to any genuine demands of the complainant. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 21.7.14 upon the OPs. In response to the same, the OPs company had sent a letter dated 25.7.14 by demanding the details of purchase from where, the genset has been procured and copy of the invoice by which, the said bio-gas genset was purchased by the complainant. The complainant, through his counsel sent a rejoinder dated 5.8.14 alongwith the quotation issued by the OPs company and photographs of Genset. But despite that nothing was done by the OPs. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed and suppressed the material facts from this Forum; the complaint is false and frivolous. Further submitted that answering OP received a call from the complainant that he has purchased one Prakash Make 15 KVA Biogas Genset from OP2 and the said genset is not working properly. Then the answering OP deputed their Mechanic to his site to check the problem of the said Genset, but when the said mechanic reached the site of the complainant and tested the Generator, it was found that the said Genset is working fine and properly and the said mechanic operated the said Genset for three hours and found no problem in the said Genset. Thereafter, the said Genset stopped due to non-availability of Biogas Fuel. The said mechanic informed the complainant that due to non-availability of the Biogas Fuel, the said Genset has stopped working otherwise, there is no problem of any type in the said Genset. The said Mechanic further told to the complainant that the consumption of 15 KVA Biogas Genset is approximate 7 cum/hour to 10 cum/hour depending upon the quality of biogas. The mechanic further informed the complainant that Genset can work 8 to 9 hours continuously only, if there is availability of 100 cum biogas plant. Thereafter, the complainant kept calling the answering OP without any reason and was adamant on his complaint about the said Genset. Then the OPs of the answering OPs advised the complainant to install another biogas plant of the same capacity so that sufficient biogas can be obtained to run the Genset as per desire of the complainant i.e. 8 to 9 hours continuously. Thereafter, the complainant accepted that the Genset is working 2 to 3 hours on available Biogas plant which means that there is no problem of any kind in the Genset in question and the problem is due to the small capacity of Biogas Plant of the complainant. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OP1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                On notice of the complaint, OP2 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. On merits, para no.1 of the complaint is admitted as correct. Further submitted that Op1 i.e. M/s Parkash Diesels Pvt. Ltd. had appointed OP2 as its dealer for the period of 17.01.13 to 31.3.14. Further para no.2 regarding the complaint stating about installation of Generator set as on 26.09.13 by employee of OP1 namely Tota Ram is admitted as correct. Further submitted that without any pointed reference, any such defect in the working of Genset any such general comment contending about poor functioning of Genset or performance being not upto the mark is a made up story and does not cut ice so as to make out a case of alleged deficiency or negligence in the services on the part of answering OP and other co-OP. As a matter of fact Bio-Gas Genset can run for any number of hours, if it is supplied with adequate quantity of sufficiently pure bio-gas. In case, the bio-gas is not worth quality or supply line is not as per requirement then there is no possibility of a better performance. Further submitted that had there been any complaint received at the end of answering OP2 there was no cause for answering OP2 to dilly dallying the matter in any manner. Further submitted that complainant had sent an e-mail thereby asking for supply of certain parts of bio-gas Genset and in response thereto answering OP2 had responded that if such parts, which were to be the part of the Bio-Gas Genset only, then the same can be supplied, since complainant had not reverted back in this regard and when the OP2 had asked complainant for the balance amount, complainant not only started dilly dallying and tried to ward off under the garb and false pretext so being raised by the complainant, as such question of any such complaint having pin pointing reference as detailed in the preceding paras, having been received by answering OP in this context does not crop up. Further denying all other allegations of the complaint, answering OP prayed  for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In order to prove his case, Ld. Counsel for complainant had placed on record affidavit of complainant Sh.Randhir Singh Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP1 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Shalendra Sharma, Authorized office of M/s Parkash Diesel Pvt. Ltd., Foundry Nagar, Agra Ex.RX, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also placed on record documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/4. Whereas, Ld. counsel for OP2 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Satwinder Singh Pawar aged 41 years S/o Sh.Hazura Singh R/o House no.B-XX-109, Maya Nagar, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana Ex.RA2, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

6.                We have gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant and have heard the Ld. counsel for OPs.

7.                Ld. counsel for complainant has filed written arguments, whereby, reiterating the facts of the complaint, submitted that due to the negligence and misrepresentation of the facts by OPs, complainant bears irreparable loss. Complainant installed this Bio Gas Gen-set to cut the cost on the expenses of electricity and diesel for running the generator but his huge investment had no means for him because this Gen-set was only running for 2-3 hours and all the expenses incurred by the complainant on the installation of this Gen-set was wasted. All the work was done under the supervision of the OP1 and OP2 and all the requirements and purpose for installation this Gen-set was already told to the OP1 and OP2 by the complainant. The hard earned money of complainant was wasted due to the misrepresentation of the OP1 and OP2. Nothing has been done till now. This all shows the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops company.

8.                On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has contended that there is no defect in the Genset. On complaint of the complainant OP1 deputed a Mechanic to check the problem of the Genset, but when the said mechanic reached the site and checked the genset and found that the same is working find and properly and the said mechanic operated the said Genset for three hours and found no problem in the said  genset. Thereafter the genset stopped due to non-availability of the Biogas Fuel. The mechanic told to the complainant that the consumption of 15 KVA Biogas Genset is approximate 7 cum/hour to 10 cum/hour depending upon the quality of biogas. The Mechanic further informed the complainant that Genset can work 8 to 9 hours continuously only if there is availability of 100 cum biogas plan.

9.                Ld. counsel for OP2 has strongly contended that there is no defect in the genset of the complainant and the genset was working properly. Since the complainant has not paid Rs.25,000/- to OP2 as balance remaining amount and the complainant made lame excuses on one pretext or the other for payment of the balance remaining amount. The present complaint is result of that conspiracy for which he wants to withdraw the remaining payment of OP2 and further the complainant is not having the arrangement of sufficient bio gas in order to run his genset for such a period of 8-9 hours daily.

10.              We have considered the rival contentions of Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through written submissions of complainant and the entire record placed on file.

11.              During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for complainant has stated at bar that complainant is ready to pay the balance remaining amount to OP2, in case the Ops are ready to carry out the necessary repair in the genset of the complainant, without any cost. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has also stated at bar that OP1 never refused to carry out the necessary repair in the genset of the complainant, if any, in case the complainant make the payment of the balance amount of the OPs.

12 .             Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and Ops are directed to carry out the necessary repair in the genset of the complainant and cure the defect, if any, so found by the Mechanic of OPs, after their thorough inspection, subject to deposit of payment of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with OP2 within 10 days. Thereafter the OPs are directed to carry service, after serving notice to the complainant regarding the visit of the mechanic, who will inspect the genset and carry out the necessary repair in the genset of the complainant and make the same smooth working by replacing any part, if required by the mechanic to the satisfaction of the complainant, without any cost. However, it shall be the obligation of the complainant himself to provide sufficient biogas, which is required to run the genset for the period for which, he so, requires. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances no order as to compensation and cost. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

 

          (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

          Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:26.03.2015 

Hardeep Singh