Jaspal Singh filed a consumer case on 18 Feb 2015 against Sunrise Generators in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/11/35 and the judgment uploaded on 16 Mar 2015.
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.35 of 2011
Date of institution : 07.01.2011. Date of Decision : 18.02.2015.
Jaspal Singh and Bros r/o VPO Jangpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
….….Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
..…Respondents/OPs.
First Appeal against order dated 01.12.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
SH.J.S.KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH.VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Durga Dutt Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Adarsh Malik, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER :
This appeal has been preferred by appellant (complainant’ in the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against order dated 01.12.2010 in C.C. No. 275 of 2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the ‘District Forum’), vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Sh.Jaspal Singh, complainant filed the complaint against the opposite parties on the averments that he purchased one diesel Generator Set of 15 KVA bearing Engine No.V3810AC20305, alternator No.EO8I-8689, original make Mahindra dated 14.3.2010, vide invoice No.199 for Rs.2,46,837/- from opposite party No.1 (Sunrise Generator) with two years guarantee. It was alleged in the complaint that OP No.1 did not deliver any accessories alognwith above Genset despite assurance that the same would be delivered within a week, but it failed to supply the same. It was further alleged in the complaint that the Generator could not work properly since its purchase and its engine used to shut down after one hour. The complainant intimated the opposite party No.1 about the above defect, but, they ignored the grievance of the complainant. He again complained about the defective Generator, vide email dated 26.03.2010, but, his complaint remained unattended by the OPs. It is tantamount to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to replace the Generator or to return the amount of price thereof to the complainant alongwith Rs.2.00 Lacs as compensation.
3. The complaint was contested by the OPs, who filed the separate written replies taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and no deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite parties. No manufacturing defect has been established in the Generator Set by the complainant. It was further averred in the reply that the defect lies only in the place of installation thereof and the same has also been reported by the service agency CAYSEE DIESELS PVT. LTD. on 15.03.2010. It was further pleaded by the OPs that the said agency wrote letter dated 19.03.2010 to the complainant and advised him to shift the DG set to better place, where the sound could not reecho. It was further averred in the replies that the complainant was also requested to sign the report, but he did not get the DG installed at the same place as advised by the service agency. It was further averred by the OPs that the accessories were duly supplied in the DG Set and the delivery was given with the complete set of accessories as well. The dismissal of the complaint was prayed for by the opposite parties by filing two separate written replies.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex. CW1, CW2 and CW3 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, Ex.RW3/A, Ex.RW4/A and Ex.RW5/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to R-5 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has preferred the present appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the record of the case. The perusal of the record shows that the complainant purchased one Diesel Generator Set of 15 KVA bearing Engine No.V3810AC20305, alternator No.EO8I-8689 from opposite party No.1, vide invoice No.199 dated 14.03.2010 for Rs.2,46,837/- vide Ex.C-1. As per Warranty Certificate for Gensets vide Ex.C-2, it is revealed that the Generator Set will be repaired Free-of-cost, if it goes out of order due to some inherent manufacturing defect within Twenty Four Calendar months from the date of dispatch or 2500 hours of running, whichever is earlier. As per allegations in the complainant in para 2, the opposite parties have not delivered any accessory alongwith Generator Set to the complainant. We have perused Ex.R-1 General Set Assembly Test Report, which shows the details of the accessories relating to the Generator set. Sh.Surinder Singh-Technician-Quality Check has filed his affidavit Ex.RW-2/A in which, he had deposed that I was posted as "Technician-Quality Check" with M/s Concorde Perfect Power Private Limited, Mohali, on 10.03.2010 and he prepared the Genset Assembly Test Report of Genset 15 KVA, Single Phase bearing engine No.V3B10AC20305, alternator make - Stamford, alternator No.E0818689. The accessories in terms of the test report were fitted in the Genset. The test report was prepared by him and the same bore his signature and the test report was prepared correctly by him vide Ex.R-1. So, from the perusal of the expert report Ex.R-1 of this witness, the version of the complainant is not established to be correct on the record.
7. As per the affidavit of Jaspal Singh Complainant Ex.CW1, he deposed in para 4 that on 07.04.2010, the said Generator set was installed at the residence of the deponent by the employee/representative of the respondent, but after one hour, the genset shut down and thereafter, when the genset was started, it shut down after two minutes again. We have perused the report of Sh.Sukhvir Singh, Senior Service Representative with Caysee Diesel Pvt. Ltd. Ex.R-4 dated 15.03.2010, in which, the relevant report is reproduced :-
"Attended the site, checked the D.G.Set Oil level, Radiator Water level for best OK. Start the Engine run Ok. All parameters working OK. But, customer is not satisfied because Engine making extra sound from a distance. But, there is no sound and vibration near by D.G. D.G. sound is due to installation at wrong place."
8. In this regard, the opposite parties have placed on record the affidavit of Sh.Sukhvir Singh Ex.RW3/A. On the basis of the report and the service representation letter bearing reference No.CDPL/09-10/481 dated 19.03.2010, it was written to the complainant that he was asked to comply with the above. The concluding part of the letter Ex.R-5 is reproduced as under:-
"We are enclosing herewith the copy of service report which was not signed by you and neither accepted the same because of the sound echo. As advised by our rep. to solve this problem, kindly shift the DG set to better place where sound does not bounce back. Once again you are requested to sign the report & send the copy of same to us. For any further guidance, you may feel to contact us."
9. The opposite parties have also placed on record two filled service job cards dated 07.07.2012 and 31.07.2013 which proves that the engine of the generator set of the complainant is Ok. The complainant failed to produce any expert witness report in order to prove the manufacturing defect, as alleged, in the above Generator. There is no evidence on record by the complainant to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the above generator set. The allegation of the complainant is that the engine of the generator set used to shutdown after one hour. Perusal of the reports submitted by Caysee Diesel Pvt. Limited on 15.03.2010 indicated about extra sound from a distance, which are due to installation on the wrong place by the complainant himself against advise of the concerned entity. There is no evidence regarding the malfunctioning of the engine of the generator, as proved by the complainant on the record. Even in Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-3, the report, it is proved that the complaint of the complainant regarding extra sound of the DG Set is without substance. The order of the District Forum is accordingly affirmed in this appeal as the allegations of the complainant remained unproved.
10. Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal of the appellant/complainant is hereby dismissed.
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(J.S.Klar)
Presiding Judicial Member
February 18, 2015. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
Lb/- Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.