Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/166/2019

Jagjeevan Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Sawrup - Opp.Party(s)

Sharwan Malik

24 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.166 of 2019.

Date of instt.:02.05.2019.

                                                                        Date of Decision: 24.7.2019.

                                                                           

Jagjeevan Ram aged about 42 years son of Shri Gurcharan Dass, resident of House No.329, Ward No.12, Near Primary School, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

 

1. M/s Ram Sawarup Surinder Kumar, Saharanpur Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor Authorized Signatory.

 

……Opposite party.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                    Ms. Neelam, Member.

                    Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present :        Sh. Sharwan Malik, Advocate for complainant.

                    Opposite party already exparte.

                                     

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jagjeevan Ram against M/s Ram Sawarup Surinder Kumar, the opposite party.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that he purchased the Crompton company submersible motor pump from the Op for a sum of Rs.28,000/- vide Invoice No.449 dt. 11.05.2018 with warranty of one year.  It is alleged that since the date of its purchase, the Submersible Motor did not work properly and having manufacturing defect like passes electric shocks in the tubewell and making vibrate. It is further alleged that he made complaints to the Op but the Op advised him take back the said pump at his shop and assured to get removed the defect or to replace the motor with new one. As per the advised of the OP, he took the said motor to the shop of the OP and the OP got repaired the motor and also received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from him illegally while the motor is in guarantee period. It is further alleged that he again affixed the motor in his fields but the defects remained as usual. Further the water level of the motor has also become low. After that he again approached the OP and requested to replace the motor and to provide the Crompton company motor. Initially, the Op agreed to replace the motor but later on he flatly refused to do the same rather misbehaved with him and also threatened if he again comes at the shop of OP, then he will face dire consequences. Due to the defective product, he suffered a great loss, as the motor was fitted in fields for proper irrigation purposes and the complainant & labour also used to drink water from the tubewell and the same was very dangerous and he suffered a lot in his avocation due to defective motor. Inspite of incurring expenses for the motor he did not get any fruitful result on account of its having manufacturing defect.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and he prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to cost of submersible pump along with upto date interest or in alternative to the payment of Submersible Motor i.e Rs.28,000/-  and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges.   Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

6.     The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on file copy of cash memo Ex.C-1. The pleadings as well as evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted as the op have failed to appear before the Forum to contest the complaint and opted to be proceeded against ex-parte. Same is also not assailed by opposite parties.  In view of the same, we see the complaint moved by complainant as genuine.  The same is accepted and we direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.28,000/- to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment within 45 days failing which the above said amount will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of decision of the complaint till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  The complainant is also directed to return the old submersible pump to the Op at the time of taking amount from the Op. File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:24.7.2019.     

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.