DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/172/2015

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Prakash Aggarwal,

S/o Sh. Narain Dass,

R/o H. No. 308-A, Gali No. 08,

Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.                           …..COMPLAINANT        

 VERSUS

Shri Ganesh Mill Stores,

Through Mr. Manav Bajaj,

Chowk Farash Khana,

G.B. Road, Delhi-110006                                                     …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                 Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                 Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

          Facts pleaded in the complaint are that on 29.12.2014, complainant bought one stainless steel flour mill having grinding capacity of approximately 10-12 kg. wheat per hour from Shri Ganesh Mill Stores (in short OP) for an amount of Rs. 7,200/-.  Mr. Manav Bajaj on the back of the card of his shop provided guarantee against any manufacturing defect.  The said flour mill was delivered by the OP on complainant’s residence on 30.12.2014 but without any warranty card.  Moreover flour mill was of Pranami Super and not of Arihant Flour Mill as promised by OP.  On enquiry OP informed that he would provide cash memo and warranty card within two weeks because the same was misplaced during transportation.  However, OP did not provide cash memo and warranty card to the complainant.  It is stated that problem started on 21.02.2015 when some wheat got stuck in the flour mill and complainant in order to remove the wheat opened its upper cover which he was unable to re-fix properly.  He approached the OP on 24.02.2015.  The machine was delivered to OP on 04.03.2015 for necessary repair.  However, OP did not repair the same.  Messages and calls of the complainant were also not answered by the OP.  Every time when OP picked up the phone he provided a new date of delivery of the flour mill after the repair and after lapse of about15 days he informed that flour mill could not be repaired in Delhi as it had some defect which was supposed to be replaced and was to be brought from Ahmedabad, Gujrat where the flour mill was manufactured.  OP did not repair the flour mill although complainant waited for more than a month.  Ultimately, OP promised that he could replace the faulty flour mill with another machine with new warranty for which the complainant was required to pay an additional sum of Rs. 2,000/-.  On negotiations, OP agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 1,500/- for replacement of the old flour mill.

          Further it is stated that on 17.04.2015 informed the complainant that he received the flour mill of brand Amul of 1.25 HP and 1HP models and the complainant could come and collect the same.  A complainant with his friend Mr. Ashok Thapa visited OP but OP did not deliver the flour mill and assured to deliver the same at the residence of the complainant.  Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 300/-with OP and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 1,200/- at the time of delivery.  The flour mill was delivered to the complainant on 23.04.2015 but again without any warranty card.  Complainant offered to make the balance payment of Rs. 1,200/- on the delivery of user manual and warranty card on being completely satisfied with the flour mill.  OP did not agree to the same and asked the complainant to return the flour mill in case the payment is not made.  Complainant refused to make the payment and OP refused to give any warranty card.  The complainant told OP that he did not want to deal with him anymore and asked the OP to refund the paid amount.  OP informed the complainant that the same will be refunded after deduction of Rs. 2,000/-.  Complainant did not agree to the proposal of the OP.  It is further stated that the flour mill is lying at the residence of the complainant and he has not used it. 

          Further, it is pleaded that legal notice dated 28.04.2015 was sent to OP which was returned with the remarks that ‘on enquiry, it is found that there is no such person at the given address’. Another legal notice dated 06.05.2015 was sent to OP through speed post which was returned with remarks that ‘the shop was found closed on every visit’.  Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to refund a sum of Rs. 7,200/- + Rs. 300/- to the complainant, to collect the flour mill from the complainant compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental and physical agony and Rs. 55,000/- towards cost of litigation.

          On issuance of notice OP appeared and contested the claim vide its written statement.  It is stated that complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of this forum.  It is also stated that shop of OP was closed due to demise of father of the OP who was proprietor of the said shop.  It is further stated that OP never sold any machine to the complainant at any point of time nor ever any receipt or guarantee card.      We have heard Sh. Amir Yadav, counsel for complainant and Sh. Krishan Mohan, counsel for OP.  Both sides adduced evidence by way of affidavit.

          It is complainant’s case that on 30.12.2014 the flour mill was received at his residence without user manual and warranty card.  It is also his case that the product was not of the same specifications as promised by the OP.  It is not explained as to why he accepted the delivery of the product which was not of desired specifications and that too without any manual or warranty card.  He did not make any complaint to the OP within a reasonable time.  He kept silent till the product allegedly developed some problem on 21.02.2015.

          A prudent customer will never buy a product without insisting upon cash memo acknowledging payment of purchase price of the product and warranty card giving guarantee/warranty for a certain period against any defect.  OP admittedly did not provide any warranty card yet the complainant did not raise any protest.

          Learned counsel for the complainant argued that OP provided his visiting card which is placed as Annexure-A on record.  There is some writing available on Annexure-A which is as under:

          “1-SS Flour Mill

           1 SHP ‘Arihant’        7200/-

          Guarantee against any m/g defect for one year. 29.12.2014”

          Visiting card of a shop is of no legal value as it can be printed anywhere.  The writing as produced above is stated to be of Manav Bajaj.  It does not bear signatures of Manav Bajaj.

          Learned counsel for OP vehemently denied that this writing is of Manav Bajaj or his father.

          Here it is relevant to refer to an order of predecessor bench dated 18.10.2016.  While disposing of application of the complainant dated 07.09.2016 requesting for an opinion of handwriting expert it was observed that

“…complainant alleged in Para 3 of the complaint that OP Mr. Manav Bajaj acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 7,200/- on the back of the card of his shop.  Therefore in the interest of justice, this acknowledgement should be examined by his handwriting expert on expenses of the complainant.  Hence, the application allowed.  Handwriting of Manav Bajaj taken by Forum today.  It is forwarded to handwriting expert along with original disputed writing on the back of a card.  Requisite fee is also forwarded to the handwriting expert.”

Complainant failed to comply with the said order.  When this Forum asked learned counsel for complainant as to why the said order was not complied to, he gave a very vague reply.  He stated that Manav Bajaj’s specimen handwriting given before this Forum was misleading and fraudulent and it was impossible to match with the said handwriting with disputed handwriting and the same would not have led to any conclusive result on which learned counsel for OP submitted that complainant cannot step into the shoes of a handwriting expert.

          Learned counsel for complainant has also argued that complainant’s case is supported by testimony of Ashok Thapa whose affidavit is placed on record to which learned counsel for OP replied that the name of Ashok Thapa is mentioned by complainant for the first time in his complaint and that his name is conspicuously missing in the legal notice addressed to the OP.  Learned counsel for the complainant could not explain as to why the name of Ashok Thapa was not mentioned in the legal notice.

          Learned counsel for OP also pointed out that complainant has repeatedly mentioned that he had very bad experience with OP then what prompted him to pay Rs. 300/- to OP on 21.04.2015 without obtaining written acknowledgement/cash memo for the same.  The complainant could not explain it.  There is no cash memo/receipt to indicate that he paid Rs. 7,200/- to OP for purchase of the flour mill.  The visiting card of a shop is of no legal value.  There is no guarantee/warranty card.  Complainant kept silent for about two months of delivery of the product at his residence.  Admittedly OP did not give him any cash memo and guarantee/warranty card and even the product was not of the desired specifications and yet the complainant kept the product without protest and subsequently even on 21.04.2015 he paid Rs. 300/- to OP without insisting on a proper cash memo/receipt.  After all he was having an earlier bad experience with OP then why he trusted OP again and paid Rs. 300/- and that too without cash memo/receipt.

          Further he himself wanted opinion of handwriting expert to prove that the writing on the card of the shop of OP acknowledging payment of Rs. 7,200/- and giving warranty of 1 year was of Manav Bajaj and when his request was allowed by the Forum, he did not pay the fee of handwriting expert.

          Accordingly we do not find any merit in the case.  The same is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on           Day of                       2019.