Punjab

Sangrur

CC/350/2014

GURJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SECRETARY, THE NEW INDIA JHARON MP CASS LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP KUMAR

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    350

                                                Instituted on:      20.06.2014

                                                Decided on:       10.04.2015

 

Gurjinder Singh aged about 33 years son of Roop Singh, resident of Village Jharon, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The New Jharon MP Cass Limited, Jharon, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Secretary.

2.     Guru Nanak Water Tech & Electronics, Chhajli Road, Sunam through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               Shri S.K.Hareri, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri Rattan Verma, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurjinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is having cooperative credit card bearing number 547.  The case of the complainant is that on 25.6.2013 the complainant purchase one RO system from the OP number 1 for Rs.6500/- against which receipt number 062626 dated 25.6.2013 was also issued to the complainant. The RO system in question was also containing one year warranty. It is further averred that after some times, the said RO system started to give some problems as the RO could not filter the water properly as the taste of the water is also not good.   The complainant complained about the defect to the OP number 2 and requested to rectify the defect and as such, thereafter the mechanic of the Op visited at the house of the complainant and repaired the RO system and assured that there will be no problem in the RO system.  It is further averred that again after some days, the RO system gave same problem in the RO system and accordingly the complainant approached the OP and requested to rectify the defect, as such the mechanic of the OP visited and checked the RO system and after checking told that the defect in the RO system is not curable. As such, the complainant requested the OPs to replace the RO system with a new one, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of the above said RO system i.e. Rs.6500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till its realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 2 was proceeded exparte on 27.01.2015 as it failed to appear despite service through publication in the ‘Daily Chardikala’ newspaper on 15.01.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant is not a consumer qua the society as the society is a limited concern.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the RO system through the society from M/s. Guru Nanak Water Tech and Electronics, Jakhal Road, Sunam and was installed at the residence of the complainant and was working properly.  It is denied that there was any defect in the RO system nor the complainant ever approached the OP number 1.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op number 1 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of the bill, Ex.C-3 copy of job card, Ex.C-4 copy of service job sheet and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact of OP number 1 that the RO system in question was sold to the complainant after purchasing the same from OP number 2. It is further admitted that the RO system in question was carrying a warranty/guarantee of one year  as is evident from the copy of warranty card of the RO system i.e. 5.7.2013 to 4.7.2014 issued by Op number 2 and it also carries the name of OP number 2 on it.   The learned counsel for the complainant has contended further that the RO system supplied by the Ops was defective one, which the OP number 2 even failed to set right the same despite visiting to the house of the complainant.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of card showing that the complainant is a member of the OP number 1 society. In the present case, the stand of the OP number 1 is that it has no knowledge about the defect in the RO system or approaching of the complainant to OP number 2 is also denied.  It is an admitted fact of the complainant and OP number 2 that the RO system supplied to the complainant was purchased from Op number 2, wherein defects were arose and the OP number 2 failed to set right the same.  In the present case, the notice was sent through registered post twice, but the same was received back and ultimately the service of OP number 2 was ordered to be effected through the publication in the newspaper i.e. Daily Chardikalan, but despite that the OP number 2 did not appear and as such, OP number 2 was proceeded exparte.  Since it is an admitted fact that the RO system in question was having a warranty of one year and it developed defects within the very period of warranty, as such, the ends of justice would be met if it is ordered that the RO system in question be replaced with a new one. Moreover, the OP number 2 chose to remain exparte.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6500/- subject to returning of the RO system in question by the complainant to the OP number 2.  The OP number 2 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of compensation for mental tension and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 10, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member