Punjab

Sangrur

CC/178/2017

Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Ghanaur Kalan MP Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ajay Pal Singh

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    178

                                                Instituted on:      02.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       11.08.2017

 

Harbans Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Ghanaur Kalan, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

The Ghanaur Kalan MP Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, Ghanaur Kalan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Secretary.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Adv.

For   OP.                   :               Shri Naresh Juneja, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Harbans Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is the member of the OP/society.  Further case of the complainant is that on 4.6.2016 the complainant took Gerri Cross Wali from the Op for two hours for taking out the motor from the bore for which the OP received an amount of Rs.120/- and as such is stated to be the consumer of the OP.  Further case of the complainant is that at the time of getting the motor out from the bore the said implement was broken and due to that reason the motor along with other implements of the complainant fell in the said bore well and damaged as such the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- due to defective gerri cross wali implement supplied by the OP. Nothing happened despite approaching the OP by the complainant again and again.   The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OP on 20.3.2017 to pay the amount in question, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of compensation along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further stated that as per the rules of the Punjab Cooperative Society Act, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took the gerry cross wali for two hours on 4.6.2016 from the OP and that the complainant paid Rs.120/- on 22.7.2016. It is stated that at the time of providing the gerry cross wali to the complainant it was in good condition, but due the mishandling by the complainant and its workers, the implement of the complainant has been broken.  As such, it is stated that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-11 are the affidavits and copies of the documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced  Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 affidavits and copies of documents and closed evidence. 
 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.               It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a member of the society and he took the Gerri Cross Wali from the OP for two hours on 4.6.2016 for bringing out the motor from the bore and used the same for the purpose.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the same was defective one and due to this, the motor along with other implements of the complainant fell in the bore well and damaged and as such suffered huge loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. To support the contention, the complainant has also produced the affidavits of Balwant Singh and Gurmail Singh, labourer on record as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, whereby they have alleged that the implement i.e. Gerri Cross Wali used for bringing out the motor out from the bore well was defective one and due to that the bore of the complainant damaged.    But, on the other hand, the stand of the Op is that the Gerri Cross Wali implement was in good condition and was further in working condition  and the loss has occurred due to the mishandling of the machine by unskilled labour workers which were not competent/qualified for the work.   Further the OP has also produced the affidavit of Bhola Singh who had taken the Gerry Machine on rent from the Op on different dates and has stated further that the same was in good condition.  Similarly, one Jeet Singh has also produced his affidavit Ex.OP-5 on record to say that he had taken the gerry machine from the OP on different dates and further stated that the same was in good condition.  Again Ex.OP-11 is the affidavit of one Gurmeet Singh, who has stated that the Gerry Machine is in the perfect working condition and the defect in the implement has arisen due to mishandling by the complainant and his unskilled workers.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced on record any expert report, much less report of expert mechanic to establish that the Gerry Machine was defective one and due to that the complainant has suffered loss of bore well.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case that he suffered loss due to defective Gerry Machine.  

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in complaint or any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However,  the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 11, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member