View 3033 Cases Against Maruti
Amarjit Singh filed a consumer case on 30 Apr 2015 against Ram Maruti Aggarwal in the Fatehgarh Sahib Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 18 May 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.
Consumer Complaint No.16 of 2015
Date of institution: 09.02.2015 Date of decision : 30.04.2015
Amarjit Singh Dhindsa son of Sh. Bhajan Singh, resident of village Kharaura, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
……..Complainant
Versus
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President. Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.
Present : Sh.C.S.Sidhu, Adv. Cl. for the complainant Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant, Amarjit Singh Dhindsa son of Sh. Bhajan Singh, resident of village Kharaura, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant purchased a PVC pipe on 30.11.2013 from opposite party No.1, which was manufactured by opposite party No.2, for the sum of Rs.1220/, vide bill No. 1899 dated 30.11.2013. On the same day, when the complainant used the said pipe, the same was torn up(damaged). The complainant approached opposite party No.1 for replacement of the same. Opposite party No.1 took the same from the complainant with assurance to replace the same with new one. Thereafter, the complainant so many times requested the opposite parties to give the new pipe or to return the price of said pipe but they remained putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately they totally refused to give the new pipe or to return the amount of Rs.1220/-, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to give new pipe or to return the amount of Rs.1220/- and to pay Rs.90,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties but they choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1 and attested copy of bill Ex-C-2, attested copy of receipt of damaged pipe as Ex-C3,attested copy of legal notice as Ex-C4, attested copy of postal receipt as Ex-C-5 and AD receipt as Ex-C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. The ld. counsel has submitted that the complainant had purchased PVC pipe worth Rs.1220/-, vide bill no.1899 dated 30.11.2013, from OP No.1 who is a retailer and OP No. 2 M/s. Ganesh Tubes, who is alleged to be a manufacture of the PVC pipe. The ld. counsel for the complainant has pleaded that the OPs on pretext of replacing the said defective PVC pipe took the original receipt, so that they could replace the same and deliver to the complainant. In the month of November 2013 complainant several times visited the OPs to get the same ratified to be provided a new PVC pipe as the complainant was unnecessary paying the labour due to non delivery of the right product. Thereafter, in the last week of April 2014 the OPs totally refused to redress the problem of complainant and intimated the complainant, what can Consumer Court do about the OPs, as they have managed to escape several times from Consumer Court. The OPs totally refused and told the complainant to approach any court but they will never replace or ratify the PVC pipe.
6. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the plea of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. We are of the considerate view that the complainant had tendered in his evidence his affidavit i.e Ex-C1 and attested copy of bill i.e Ex-C2, attested copy of receipt of damaged pipe i.e Ex-C3, attested copy of legal notice i.e Ex-C4, attested copy of postal receipt i.e Ex-C-5 and AD receipt i.e Ex-C-6. It is ample clear from the evidence led by the complainant that the OPs had deliberately committed deficiency of service and caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant, despite knowing the facts that the said PVC pipe was found to be defective one. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion we direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1220/- i.e price of PVC pipe Ex- C2. Hence, we partly accept the present complaint. Complainant is also held entitled to compensation on account of mental and physical harassment for a sum of Rs.1500/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. The amount should be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise interest of 9% will be levied till its realization.
7. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 28.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated:30.04.2015
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Veena Chahal) Member
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.