Haryana

Panchkula

CC/68/2015

RAM CHANDER SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIVA TRADERS & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	68 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	08.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	07.07.2015

                                                                                          

Ram Chander Sharma son of late Shri Prabhu Dayal, resident of H. No. 2510/1, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Siva Traders, Shop No. 1, Gali No. 2, Maheshpur, Sector 21, Panchkula (Haryana).
2. Prince Machines, Railway Road, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab).

 

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

Quorum:               Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

OP no. 1 is already ex-parte.

Mr. Manoj Bimbraw, OP no. 2 in person.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant-Ram Chander Sharma against the OPs with the averments that he got a job work at Nayagaon and complainant had to complete all the wooden work of a new house and due to deficiency of labour, he was in need of a multipurpose wooden machine and was to complete the wooden work of the whole house with the help of that machine. On the request of the complainant, the owner of the house gave an advance of Rs. 70,000/-. Then complainant inquired about the wooden planner machine from Prince Machines, Sirhind, they quoted the rate of Rs.60,000/- with Prince Motor and Rs. 65,000/- with Crompton Greaves Motor and Prince Machines also told him that they have their distributer at village Maheshpur (Panchkula) under the name of M/s Siva Traders.  On 12.02.2014 complainant gave the full payment of Rs. 65,000/- to M/s Shiv Traders, Maheshpur, Panchkula on the assurance that the machine would be supplied at site but they did not send the machine at site, despite repeated requests.  At last complainant went at their shop and on reaching there they told  that he would  have to pay Rs. 5,000/- more in case he want the machine with Crompton Greaves Motor.  The complainant told them to refund his money so that he could get the machine directly from the company or else where.  However, they did not return his money.  That after 11 days on 22.02.2014 M/s Shiv Traders, Maheshpur, Panchkula supplied the wooden planner with prince motor i.e. they gave him the machine of Rs. 60,000/- whereas he paid Rs. 65,000/- and OP no. 1 created a bill of Rs. 64,883/- against the wooden planner machine and till date they have not refunded the balance amount of Rs. 117/-. That the aforementioned planner machine according to M/s Prince Machines, Sirhind, has four major functions. On 23.02.2014 when complainant operated the machine only two functions were working namely Planner and Drilling but cutting and thickness through gauge were not working. The complainant made the complaints to the OP no. 1 in this regard but inspite of repeated complaints visited the shop of OP No.1, no mechanic has attended the complaint and the machine is still not functioning properly.  On 29.08.2014 the complainant sent legal notices to M/s Shiv traders, Maheshpur and M/s Prince Machines, Sirhind.  The complainant had to hire the wooden planner machine from some other person to complete the work in time and even had to get the work done from other shop. The complainant had to pay a hefty amount to the tune of Rs. 60,000 and he had spent a total of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to OP no. 1 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of OP no. 1.  It is deemed to be served and the OP no. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.05.2015.
3.  OP no. 2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant never complained regarding the alleged non-working of machine with the OP no. 2.  It is submitted that OP no. 1 was not their authorized dealer and he had purchased only one machine from them and he is also defaulter of the amount of the same till today. It is submitted that answering respondent never received the Legal Notice dated 29.08.2014 from the complainant.  Moreover the complainant had purchased the said wood planner from OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 never complained against the alleged wood planner. It is further submitted that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.    
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP no. 2 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence.
5. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case file has been perused very carefully.
6. It is required to be noticed, at the very outset that the complainant does not have a subsisting grievance against OP No.2. It would be so evident from a perusal of the below extracted certification dated 13.06.2011 made by the complainant on the letter head of Op No.2.

“This is to state that my wood working planner machines has been serviced to my satisfaction and I am fully satisfied.”

7. The factum of that documentation was not controverted on behalf of the complainant during the course of hearing. The Op No.2 shall, thus, stand exonerated from any liability in this complaint.
8. Insofaras Op No.1 is concerned, the complainant has made precise averments with regard to the effect that he had approached the former a number of times with the grievance that the machine purchased by the latter from the former was only performing two functions (Planner and Drilling) and that it was not performing the function of cutting and thickness through gauge but that the former did not get the grievance redressed. In fact, OP No.1 did initially assure that a mechanic would be deputed to rectify the defect but that assurance was not implemented and none turned up to rectify the defect inspite of the fact that the purchase aforementioned carried a guarantee of one year.
9. The averments made by the complainant to the above effect are buttressed by an affidavit.
10. On the other hand, Op No.1 did not contest the complaint by having refrained from entering appearance and ex-parte proceedings were ordered against it vide order dated 18.05.2015.
11. On point of fact, there is also an averment by the complainant that he had served a legal notice as well upon Op No.1 but it did not opt to respond to it. That averment is also uncontroverted. The stand applies to an averment made by the complainant that he had had to incur an expenditure of Rs.60,000/- in order to be able to complete the job he had undertaken.
12. The present is, thus, a case therein the averments made by the complainant and indicated in the preceeding para touching the core point for adjudication are unrebutted. We would, accordingly allow this complaint and direct the Ops as under:-

1. OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant in order to reimburse the additional expenditure the latter had to incur to complete the job he had undertaken which he would have completed with the purchase he had made from Op No.1 only if the machine had performed all the functions it was expected to.
2. OP No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the compensation for the mental agony and harassment undergone by him.
3. Op No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

07.07.2015                     ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                       MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                             ANITA KAPOOR

                              MEMBER