Gurbhej Singh filed a consumer case on 18 Jun 2015 against Prop Sukhdev Singh in the Faridkot Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/153 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Oct 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 153
Date of Institution : 11.11.2014
Date of Decision : 18.06.2015
Gurbhej Sing aged about 55 years, s/o Kartar Singh, s/o Prem singh r/o village Dhilwan Khurd, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
.....Complainant
Versus
Proprietor Sukhdev Singh (J E), M/s Rupianwala Trading Company, Guru Harasahai Road, Sadiq now shifted at Village Ghudu Wala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
Managing Direcotr, Antex Power (India), 109, Old Anarkali, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi.
....Opposite Parties(Ops)
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,
Sh P Singla, Member.
Present: Sh G S Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Ops Exparte.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective solar water heater/geyser worth Rs 23,331/- or to refund the price of heater with interest at the rate of 24% per anum from the date of purchase till payment and for also directing Ops to pay Rs 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, to pay Rs 7000/- as maintenance of roof and Rs 30,000/- for power consumption charges besides litigation expenses of Rs 5000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Op-1 dealer of OP-2 allured the complainant by giving a call and complainant purchased Antex Solar Water Heater/Geyser of 150 L vide bill no. 005 dated 23.12.2013 for Rs 23,331/-from Op-1; that alongwith bill, OP-1 gave no warranty card to complainant, but gave only brochure with oral warranty for 10 years on all parts against defective material or workmanship from the date of purchase and in case of any defect, Ops undertook to repair and if necessary to replace the defective system; that after three months of its purchase, said heater stopped working properly and started giving trouble due to leakage from the drum and due to leakage and damage of pipes complainant did not get hot water from the said heater; that complainant made call to OP-1 on his mobile no. 96531-08264 and got registered his complaint regarding damage of pipes and leakage of drum and thereafter, OP-1 sent mechanics, who changed the damaged solar pipes and also changed the plastic seals of solar drum/geyser, but leakage problem could not be cured and it again started leaking, which also damaged the paint and roof of one room of the house of complainant, where solar heater is installed; that complainant got painted the roof three times and spent Rs7000/- on this and due to leakage, walls of the room are almost damaged being damped; that complainant made many requests to OP-1 to rectify the defect in his heater, but OP-1 did not do anything, complainant also tried on the customer care phone of OP-2, but that number is also not responding and thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice dt 15.10.2014 to Ops, but they intentionally evaded service and notice came back to the counsel for complainant; that all this amounts to trade mal practice and deficiency on the part of Ops, which has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant and he has prayed for directing Ops to replace the defective heater with new one of same model or to refund the price of same with interest and for also directing Ops to pay Rs 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and to pay Rs 5000/-as the cost of litigation besides roof maintenance and power consumption charges worth Rs 7000/- and Rs 30,000/- respectively. Hence, the complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.11.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 Notice was issued to OP-1 through RC on 26.11.2014 and OP-1 was declared to have been duly served through RC containing notice and copy of complaint and as none appeared in the Forum on behalf of Op-1 on the date fixed, therefore, Opposite Party no. 1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.01.2015. Notice issued to OP-2 through RC containing summons on 16.02.2015 and OP-2 was declared to have been duly served through RC containing notice and copy of complaint and as none appeared in the Forum on behalf of Op-2 on the date fixed, therefore, Opposite Party no. 2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 18.03.2015.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and C-12 and then, closed the evidence.
6 As there is no rebuttal from the side of Ops, therefore, exparte arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant were heard and we have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant.
7 Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased the solar water heater from Ops for his residence on 23.12.2013. The Ops duly issued bill which is Ex C-2 Ops also gave brochure of the Company which is Ex C-10, but the product of the Ops was not up to the mark and it started giving trouble after very short interval. Complainant approached Ops for its repair but Ops did not repair the same to his satisfaction and this act of the Ops is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. At the time of delivery of the solar water heater, Ops orally gave warranty for the period of 10 years on all parts of the product. However, they have not given any warranty in written. In his support, the ld counsel for complainant produced a citation M/s Sandeep Marbles Vs Jagdev Singh reported as 2013 Vol IV Consumer Law Today page 184 wherein our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh has observed that even if there was no guarantee, then also the OP was not authorized to sell the defective material and for supply any goods which are defective, consumer complaint can be filed whether there is any guarantee/warranty or not.
8 From the perusal of the file, evidence led by the complainant and arguments of the ld counsel for complainant, we are of the considered opinion that complainant is a consumer of Ops and Ops are liable for the deficiency in service for not repairing the solar water heater of the complainant and due to this complainant has suffered great trouble, harassment and mental agony. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed and Ops are ordered jointly and severally to replace the defective solar water heater of the complainant with new one of same model within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Ops are ordered to refund the amount of Rs 23,331/-paid by complainant as cost of the solar water heater alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of purchase of heater i.e 23.12.2013 till realization. Ops are also directed to pay Rs 8,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs 3,000/- as litigation expenses. In case of non compliance of this order, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum:
Dated: 18.06.2015
Member Member President (Parampal Kaur) (P Singla) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.