Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/27/2013

Kulwinder Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singh Crockery. - Opp.Party(s)

Brijesh Chauhan

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.27 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution:08.01.2013.

                                                                                     Date of decision: 28.06.2016.

 

Kulwinder Singh son of Shri Sukhdev Singh, age 36 years, resident of village Thaska Khadar, sub tehsil Radaur, tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Singh Crockery, Main Bazar Radaur, Distt. Yamuna nagar through its Prop./partner.

 

                                                                                                             … Respondent.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Brijesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Naresh Gaur, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that respondents (herein after referred as OP) be directed to pay the price value of the cooker and to pay compensation and litigation expenses  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had purchased one induction cooker from OP on 2.2.2012 and the said cooker was under the warranty of one year.  At the time of purchase of the said cooker, the OP has assured to the complainant that cooker is high standard quality and will prove very much useful to the complainant.  In case of any fault/defect, the price of the said cooker will be returned to the complainant.  However, only after 10 days from the date of purchase the cooker in question stopped working and was damaged, on this complainant approached to the OP 2-3 times for its repair but the same could not be repaired.  Lastly, OP said that cooker in question is having manufacturing defect and the same is not fit to work properly.  OP retained the said cooker with him and assured to the complainant to make the payment of the said cooker.  Since then, the complainant approached to the OP time and again and requested to make the payment of the said induction cooker but the OP kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.  This act and conduct of the OP constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence, this complaint.  In support of case, the counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as Annexure CW/A, documents i.e. Photocopy of terms and conditions of warranty as Annexure C.1, Photocopy of postal receipt as Annexure C.2, Copy of legal notice as Annexure C.3 and acknowledgement as Annexure C.4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

3.                     Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties because the OP has not sold any induction cooker to the complainant as alleged in the complaint, so the complainant does not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and can not be considered as consumer; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has got no cause of action; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merits it has been specifically denied that complainant purchased any induction cooker from the OP as alleged in the complaint, so the question of giving any warranty  and assurance to the complainant in respect cooker in question does not arise at all.  The contents narrated therein are false and frivolous and there is no semblance of truth.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.  In support of version, the OP failed to file any evidence despite so many opportunities including last opportunities, hence, the evidence of OP was closed by court order vide order dated 1.6.2016.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.  The only version of the complainant is that he purchased one induction cooker on 2.2.2012 from the OP and during the currency of warranty of one year (Annexure C.1), induction cooker in question stopped working and due to this the complainant visited the OP 2-3 times but the OP flatly refused to repair the same, even the induction cooker in question was retained by the OP which is still lying with the OP, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

5.                     On the other hand the learned counsel for the OP argued at length that when the OP has not sold any induction cooker to the complainant, as alleged in the complaint, then OP can not be held responsible for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on his part.  Learned counsel for the OP further argued that no purchase bill has been placed on the file by the complainant, even the name of the complainant is also not mentioned in the warranty card (Annexure C.1) placed on the file by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being false and frivolous.

6.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The version of the OP that the OP has not sold any induction cooker to the complainant is not tenable as from the perusal of Photocopy of warranty card (Annexure C.1), it prima facie appears, that it bears the signature of the same person who has signed the power of attorney in favour of Shri Ajay Shandilya, Advocate and Shri Naresh Gaur, Advocate placed on the file on 4.5.2016 and when the warranty card bears signature of the same person of the OP, then the plea taken by the OP is not believable.  Further, OP failed to file any cogent evidence despite so many opportunities to rebut the version of the complainant.  We have also gone through the written statement minutely but OP has not mentioned single iota of word that the present complaint has been filed due to some revenge or enmity or otherwise, meaning thereby no reason has been disclosed by the OP that the complainant has filed the present complaint due to that reason against him.  Although, complainant has not placed any purchase bill on the file even then it can not be presumed that OP has not sold any induction cooker to the complainant. Further, no affidavit in support of his version has been filed by the OP.  Further from the perusal of photocopy of warranty card (Annexure C.1), it is clearly evident that product i.e. induction cooker was having warranty of one year w.e.f. 2.2.2012 and the present complaint has been filed on 8.1.2013 meaning thereby that the present complaint has been filed during the currency of warranty period. Even prior to filing of present complaint, the complainant issued legal notice on 19.10.2012 (Annexure C.3) to the OP which was neither replied nor grievances of the complainant were redressed by the OP.  The OP did not bother to contents of complaint by filing cogent evidence in support of his version whereas the complainant has filed his unrebutted affidavit in support of his complaint and also tendered into evidence Photocopy of warranty card Annexure C.1 and copy of legal notice Annexure C.3.  . 

7.                     In these circumstance noted above, we are of considered view that complainant has purchased induction cooker in question from OP which was having warranty of one year but OP has not issued any bill to the complainant due to reason best known to him, however, it constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to repair the induction cooker in question free of costs and to hand over the same to the complainant (as old defective induction cooker is lying with OP as per version of the complainant) and also to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order 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 in open court.28.06.2016

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER.