BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No:  237 of 2010

Date of Institution:   21.04.2010

Date of Decision  :   21.09.2010

Sh.V.K.Uppal, Partner of M/s Unison Pharmaceuticals, Plot No.124, EPIP, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Jharmajri, Baddi (HP).

……Complainant

V E R S U S

Rajan Gupta, Director, Concorde Perfect Power Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.2927, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                           PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI              MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                          MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Jasbir Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

OP exparte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.V.K.Uppal partner of M/s Unison Pharmaceuticals against Rajan Gupta, Director of Concorde Perfect Power Private Limited  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for recovery of Rs.2.20 lacs as compensation for supplying a defective D.G. set and for harassment, mental agony and financial loss.

1]             The complainant purchased one DG Set of Mahindra, self start, silent 140 KVA, three phase, PFO.8,1500RPM Diesel, comprising 61985 CC Engine, Compton Greaves Alternator & Complete with all Std. Accessories, Eng. No.B409025550, Alt. No.IEAG-1658, Qty-One-set, for Rs.6.40 lacs, from OP on 9.11.2009.  The bill has been placed at Ann.P-1.  The DG set  on working was found to be defective by the complainant. A complaint was made to the OP.  It was found on inspection by the technical staff Sh.Bharat Bhushan of the Op that the speed control unit of the DG set needed replacement.  The said item was handed over to Sh.Bharat Bhushan.  The set was to be replaced by 11.2.2010.  However, no action has been taken by the OP to repair the machine due to which the complainant could not use the DG set for production/manufacture of goods as per his target.  The complainant made several visits to the business premises of the OP to complain about the defect in the machine but the OP did not bother to rectify the defect.  The complainant, therefore, issued a legal notice on 4.3.2010 to the OP, which has been placed at Ann.P-3.  However, no positive response has been received from the OP till date. The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint demanding compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs for loss and inconvenience suffered by him. 

2]             After admission of complaint,  summons were issued to OP through Process Server.  As per the report of the Process Server, OP has been duly served.  Neither the Director has appeared in person nor any authorized agent has appeared on behalf of OP, therefore, it was proceeded as exparte on 28.5.2010. 

3]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. 

4]             At the time of arguments, the ld.Counsel for the complainant again wished to point out that despite the legal notice and the court notice, the OP has still not taken any steps to rectify the defect in the DG set of the complainant.  The complainant still continues to suffer monetarily due to this negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service by the OP.

5]             We are also of the opinion that the act of the OP in not responding to the call/complaint of the complainant to rectify the defect in the DG set amount to deficiency in service.  The machine has been used for just only 20 days and within this short span of time, it has already started giving problem.  When the complainant approached the OP, the OP should have immediately taken adequate steps to rectify the defect in the said machine.

6]             In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complaint should be allowed.  The complainant must not suffer due to the negligence of the OP.  Hence, allowing this complaint, we order as under:-

i)         OP will replace the speed control unit of the Genset supplied to the complainant with a new one and also ensure that the genset is working properly. 

ii)        OP will also pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the loss suffered by him.

iii)       OP will also pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.   

                This order will be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay for the cost of a new speed control unit to the complainant and the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest @12% per annum, from the date of the order till its actual payment to the complainant, besides payment of litigation cost.

                Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.    

Announced

21^st Sept., 2010                                                             Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

“om”