Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/599/2015

Hollandia Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajnish Sihag s/o Anant Ram Sihag - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Tantia

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 599 /2015

 

Hollandia Power Solutions Pvt.Ltd.,94 National Media Center, NH 8 Gurgaon & ors.

Vs.

 

Rajneesh Sihag s/o Anantram Sihag r/o Pharsewala Tehsil Padampur Distt. Sriganganagar.

 

 

Date of Order 2.02 .2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Ajayraj Tantia counsel for the appellant

None present on behalf of the respondent

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Sriganganagar dated 28.4 .2015 whereby the liability has been imposed on the appellant.

 

The facts of the case are that on 25.2.2013 the complainant purchased a Bio Gas Plant at Rs. 28,281/-. Thereafter a complaint has been made that it is not producing gas and hence complaint has been filed.

 

The appellant has objected as regard to the jurisdiction of the court that Bio Gas Plant was sold in Rewari. The appellant was not having any office or outlet at Ganganagar hence, the court at Sriganganagar has no jurisdiction and no guarantee has been given and after much delay the complaint has been lodged. Hence, it should have been rejected.

 

None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the original record of the case.

 

3

 

The first contention of the appellant is that product was purchased at Rewari and Sriganganagar court has no jurisdiction but the record of the case goes to show that vide Anx. 1 retail invoice, the product was to deliver at the address given in the invoice at Sriganganagar. Further Anx. 2 Challan Outward was also submitted in which the name of the consignee and address has been shown as Sriganganagar and consignor is appellant. Hence, delivery of the product was given to the respondent in Sriganganagar and the Sriganganagar court has jurisdiction and objection as regard to the jurisdiction is not sustainable.

 

The next contention of the appellant is that there is no guarantee to the product hence, they are not liable. But in communication address to this count by Virdhi Joshi guarantee for one year is admitted. Be that may be still there is an inbuilt guarantee that the product will work for the purpose for which it has been purchased. The commissioner has inspected the plant and found that it is not working and not producing any gas which shows that there is an inbuilt defect in the plant and further after the inspection by the commissioner the appellants have not cared to remove the defect which shows that there was

 

4

 

manufacturing defect in the plant which was in the knowledge of the appellants and they have not cared to remove it. Hence, the court below has rightly ordered for refund of cost of plant as well as transportation charges with interest and cost of proceedings. The court below has rightly scanned the evidence on record and there is no fault in the findings and reasonings of the court below. No interference is needed. The appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm