Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/528/2010

Mehndiratta Music World - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh.Tarsem Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Harvinder Aneja

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No… 528  of 2010.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 31.5.2010

                                                                                               Date of decision: 7.10.2015.

Mehndiratta Music World near HDFC Bank, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Mehndiratta.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Sh. Tarsem Lal, office Incharge of Sharma enterprises having its Branch at Govind Puri Road, Opposite Goga Madi Mandir, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Sharma Enterprises Shop No.21, Gaurav Park, Jagadhri Road, Near Tangri Bridge, Ambala Cantt.
3. KSN Solution SCO 1, Hotel Dreams Lane, Near Sewak Guest House, Karnal.
4. Parshant Generator Co. Killa No. 66/6/2, Village Nuna Mazra Jhajjar Road, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar-Haryana.  

 

                                                                                                                        …opposite parties.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Ajay Mehta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               None for OPs No.1 to 3.

              OP No.4 already ex-parte.     

             

 

ORDER

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by complainant firm Mehndiratta Music World through its proprietor Kuldeep Kumar Mehndiratta under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying thereing that the OPs be directed to refund the cost of generator which was purchased by him alongwith Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment etc. and Rs. 21,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                     OP No.1 has been impleaded as office incharge of OP No.2 who is dealer from which the complainant has purchased the generator in question and the OP No.3 is the service centre of manufacturer OP No.4.

3.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant firm purchased a silent generator from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs. 2,66,472/- including taxes etc. on dated 10.4.2010 vide invoice No. 1565 which was sold by OP No.4 to OP No.2 vide invoice No.31 dated 19.3.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,38,912/-. The said generator was installed on 13.4.2010 at the premises of the complainant but very surprisingly the generator set occurred problem on the same very day as the DG commissions were not working properly. Again on 15.4.2010 another problem occurred and there was a complaint with regard to leakage of oil in the DG commission and on 16.4.2010 the representative of OP No.3 attended complaint of the complainant and found that there was crack in front oil seal and leakage was also found. The seal was repaired on 17.4.2010. It was not the end even on 16.4.2010 a new problem was faced by the complainant in regard to generator in question that the oil was not passing through the generator injector as the vacuum was created in DG set which was also repaired. Further on 20.4.2010 another problem regarding not starting the engine developed and it was observed by the representative of the OPs that engine was not starting due to air in fuel system. Again on 6.5.2010 the generator stopped all of sudden and thereafter a memo/job card was issued in this regard. Time and again the complainant was facing several problems with the generator and ultimately when on 6.6.2010 another defect i.e. engine could not come to hault came to the notice of the complainant and it was observed by the OPs that relay of DG system was found faulty. The problems were being multiplied day by day and on 15.5.2010 another problem regarding Horse Brither Pipe was repaired and in lieu of that no job card was issued by the OPs. Lastly, it has been mentioned that it is the chain of deficiency which the complainant has suffered on the part of OPs as there was wrong mechanical manufacturing and technical defect in the generator and the complainant has installed the same for his job but due to inefficient working of the generator, the complainant has suffered a lot of adverse coverage of his work and mental agony and harassment. As such, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the cost of generator alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 21000/- from the OPs. Hence this complaint.

4.                     Upon notice OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable qua him as he was only an employee of  OP No.2 and has no concern with the dealing and further transaction regarding the generator in question, complaint has been filed with malafide intention impleading to him just to create the jurisdiction of this Forum as the complainant has purchased generator from OP No.2 from Ambala which was manufactured by OP No.4 at Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar, Haryana and all the service have been obtained from OP No.3 having office at Karnal and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and on merit it has been stated that the OP No.1 is only representative of the OP No.2 and OP No.1 has already left his job and not aware about the further sale transaction and other activities that has taken between the complainant and other OPs. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. However, OP No.1 after filing written statement failed to appear before this Forum and his presence was marked as ‘None’.

5.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed his written statement separately by taking some preliminary objections such as the complainant purchased the silent generator for commercial purpose,  has concealed the true and material facts and the OP No.2 is only sale dealer and is not having any liability for rendering the repair services etc. On merit, it has been admitted that generator in question was sold by him to the complainant but OP No.2 have no concern with any liability and further if there is any manufacturing defect then it casts liability upon the manufacturer i.e. OP No.4. Lastly, prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP No.2.  However, after filing written statement OP No.2 also failed to appear before this Forum and his presence was also marked as ‘None’.

6.                     OP No.3 appeared in person at initial stage but no written statement was filed and lateron he failed to appear and his presence was marked as ‘None.’

7.                     OP No.4 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2011.

8.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of bill dated 19.3.2010 issued by Prashant Generator Co. as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 10.4.2010 issued by Sharma Enterprises as Annexure C-2, Photo copies of job cards as Annexure C-3 to C-13 and closed his evidence.

9                      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

10.                   It is not disputed that complainant has purchased generator set in question from OP No.2 vide bill No. 1565 dated 10.4.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,66,472/-. It is also not disputed that the generator set in question is manufactured by OP No.4 and services had been provided by OP No.3 to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to contact the OP No.1 with the affairs of complaint, so the complaint against OP No.1 is hereby ordered to be dismissed. Further OP No.3 has carried out the services for repairing or rectifying the problems as alleged by the complainant in his complaint which are also evident from Annexure C-3 to C-13 but no document has been filed by the complainant that OP No.3 is authorized service centre of OP No.2 or OP No.4. The OP No.2 has specifically been mentioned in para No.8 of written statement that he has no connection with the affairs of OP No.3 and if there was any manufacturing defect then it casts the liability upon manufacturer i.e. OP No.4. Even the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 nor filed any documents showing that OP No.3 has charged any amount for providing services to the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that the present complaint qua OP No.3 is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the present complaint qua OP No.3 is hereby dismissed.

11.                   Now question remains that whether there was any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 & 4?

12.                   Learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued at length that generator purchased by the complainant remains out of working due to one problem or other and complainant has faced hardship so many times and has also suffered financial loss as well as physical harassment and mental agony. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the job sheets Annexure C-3 to C-13 which has been prepared by the representative/ mechanic of OIP No.3 as and when he attended the complaints regarding the defects of generator received from the complainant. It is clear from these job sheets Annexure C-3 to C-13 that the generator of the complainant remained out of working for one day or 2 days and has been repaired or rectified by the service engineer of OP No.3. Job sheet Annexure C-3 has been prepared just for commissioning of the DG (Generator) in question on 13.4.2010. As  per Annexure C-4, Job sheet dated 17.4.2010, there was leakage of oil due to crack in the oil seal which was replaced and the job work was completed. Further from the perusal of Annexure C-5 job sheet dated 16.4.2010, it is clear that oil was not passing through injector which was rectified by releasing the air from the injector only. As per Annexure C-6 job sheet dated 21.4.2010, the generator set was not working due to air in fuel system and was rectified on 21.4.2010. Further from the perusal of Annexure C-7  job sheet dated 22.4.2010, it is clear that there was coolant leakage which was rectified. Job sheet Annexure C-8 dated 6.5.2010 has been issued against the normal checking of the D.G. set in question and representative/mechanic has specifically been mentioned that I have checked the DG set in question at site and found D.G.Set is working OK. There are also the job sheets dated 13.5.2010, 15.5.2010, 7.6.2010, 21.5.2010 in which the fault on one account or other has been mentioned and rectified by the mechanic/ representative of OP No.3. Lastly learned counsel for the complainant argued that from these documents/job cards it is clear that the complainant had faced hardship and has also suffered financial loss as well as mental agony and prayed for refund the cost of generator to complainant alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as stated above.

13.                   We have minutely and carefully examined the job sheets filed by the complainant. No doubt from the perusal of job sheets Annexure C-3 to Annexure C-13, the D.G. set purchased by the complainant remains out of order for one day or two days and the complainant might have faced problem and hardship but the problems mentioned in these job sheets are minor in nature. Even in 2-3 job sheets, it is clearly mentioned that DG is working O.K. Further these job sheets are related for the period w.e.f. 13.4.2010 i.e. date of DG commission up to 7.6.2010 and the fault shown in these job sheets are related to the outer portion of the D.G. set. The representative/ mechanic has no where mentioned in any job sheet that the DG set have any manufacturing defect. However, complainant has made endorsement on each job sheet that he is not satisfied with the working of DG. Set and will file a complaint in the Consumer Forum. The complainant has totally failed to file any documentary evidence regarding any guarantee/warranty card issued by the OP No.2 or OP No.4 from which this Forum consider that the DG set in question was under warranty and OP No.2 or 4 was under obligation to repair or replace the same. As and when any problem arise in the generator set the same has been rectified by the mechanic/service engineer free of costs which is evident from Annexure C-3 to C-13. However, we feel that complainant might have faced some problems and hardship after purchasing the DG set in question. 

14.                   The main purpose of the product such like generator is to provide electricity and when it stopped to generate electricity due to one problem or other then the very purpose of the product cannot be served. The complainant has lodged complaints so many times and these facts have not been denied by OP No.2 either in reply or in the affidavit by way of evidence. Even the OPs No.2 & 4 failed to contest the complaint and version of the complainant remained unrebutted.

15.                   The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, the generator set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting the consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly  customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer. Only consumer, when he buys a new product, he is under the impression that the same is found to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new product would be defect free. A new product could be defective as well. It could be that some errors are in significant but there are, may be many others, which substantially impair use of the product. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of the defects or its cause or source. Even if no individual part could be identified as defective.  The Consumer Forum has, however, to take into consideration consumer state of mind as well. After all he had invested in the new product to buy peace of mind hopping that the same is dependable and trouble free.

16.                   The pleading and contention put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted as the OPs failed to contest the complaint. Hence, we have no option except to accept the complaint of complainant.

17.                   After going through the above noted facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to file any warranty or guarantee card and further from the perusal of job sheets Annexure C-3 to C-13 the generator set in question was having minor/regular problems in the outer portion of the DG set and no any major problem has been pointed out in the engine or system of generating the electricity by the service engineer. Hence, it is not a fit case where this Forum can order to replace the DG set or refund the cost of the generator set in question to the complainant. However, the complainant has suffered a lot of hardship due to minor problems whatsoever. So, this Forum is of the considered view that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be sufficient to compensate the complainant on this account.

18.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and hardship and Rs. 2000/- on account of litigation expenses. Firstly awarded amount will be satisfied by OP No.2. However, OP No.2 is at liberty to recover the same from OP No.4. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of decision failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 7.10.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.