Punjab

Sangrur

CC/155/2018

M/s K.N.Industries - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pioneer Cranes & Elevators (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rahul Sharma

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  155

                                                Instituted on:    02.04.2018

                                                Decided on:       31.10.2018

 

 

M/s. K.N. Industries, Jind Road, Sangrur 148 001 through its partners Nresh Kumar son of Late Sh. Om Parkash and Anita Rani wife of Naresh Kumar, both residents of H.No.150, New Grain Market, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

 

Pioneer Cranes & Elevators (P) Ltd. Opposite ITI College, Gill Road, Ludhiana 141 003 (India) through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Inderjit Kaur, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Inderjit Kaur &Vinod Kumar Gulati.

 

1.             M/s. K.N. Industries through its partners Naresh Kumar and Anita Rani, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by purchasing one E.O.T. Crane having capacity of 3 tons for a sum of Rs.4,39,526/- vide invoice number 1839 dated 10.12.2014 from the OP.  Further case of the complainant is that due to non availability of work, the complainant could not use the said machine for two or three months and when he used the same on 29.4.2015, then suddenly a noise came out from up down gear box and bolts were found broken and fell down. The complainant immediately complained the matter to the OP and Shri Rajesh Kumar, representative of the Op visited the complainant on 1.5.2015 and he took the break drum with him with a promise to replace the same within a period of seven days, but the OP failed to remove the defect in the crane machine thereafter.    Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,39,526/- along with interest @ 15% per annum and has further claimed to pay for mental, agony etc. compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the present case involves complicated questions of law and facts and that the complaint is time barred.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one E.O.T. crane having capacity of 3 ton for a sum of Rs.4,39,526/- vide invoice number 1839 dated 10.12.2014, but the contents of the complaint have been denied. It has been denied that the complainant did not use the machine in question due to non availability of the work.  It is also denied that the complainant used the E.O.T. crane on 29.4.2015 for 2-3 hours, then suddenly a noise came out from up-down gear box and bolts were broken.  It is specifically denied that there is any defect in the machine in question.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 tendered documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             At the outset, a bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant purchased the E.O.T. crane in question on 10.12.2014 from the OP and a defect developed in it on 29.4.2015, whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint on 02.04.2018 after the expiry of two years of limitation period, whereas as per the section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint should be filed within a period of two years of arising of cause of action. Further the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support his contention that the EOT Crane in question became  defective on 24.4.2015 after its use of 2 to 3 hours  and the complainant ever approached the OP for removal of the defect in the EOT Crane in question and one person named Rajesh Kumar ever visited to the site to take away the defective part of EOT crane for its replacement.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by time and the same deserves dismissal.

 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        October 31, 2018.                                    

                                                                (Inderjit Kaur)

                                                            Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member