Haryana

Jind

292/12

Dr. Rajat Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Prop. Gokal Chand Bhagwan, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh S.K.Singla

07 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 292 of 2012

   Date of Institution: 4.10.2012

   Date of final order: 9.1.2015

Dr. Rajat Gupta s/o Dr. B.C. Gupta r/o 124 model town, Narwana, District Jind.   

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1.     The Proprietor/partner Gokal Chand Har Bhagwan wholesale

        and

        retail cycles and assessories dealer, Parijat chowk, Hisar.

2.     Grand Slam Fitness Pvt. Ltd. H.O. M-74 M Block (Mkt.)

        G.K.-II,

        New Delhi 110048 through its M.D./Chairman.

                                                    …..Opposite parties.

.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present:  Sh. S.K. Singla Adv. for complainant.

              Sh. P.K. Batra Adv. for opposite parties.

            

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased a  Jogger’s trademill machine for a sum of Rs.16,500/- vide bill No.6064 dated 5.2.2012 from opposite parties. The opposite parties gave full guarantee/warranty regarding any defect of the above said machine but they did not issue the guarantee/warranty card. The above said exercise machine is

                        Dr. Rajat Gupta Vs. Gokal Chand etc.

                                                …2…

defective from the very beginning i.e. knocking sound in the machine.  The complainant made many complaints to the opposite parties for remove the defect of the machine. Thereafter, the opposite parties have sent a technician to the house of complainant who after checking machine said that first time he had heard such a noise in a new machine and he could not repair the fault of machine and asked to the complainant that there is manufacturing fault in the machine. It is stated that on 8.6.2012 the opposite party No.2 charged a sum of Rs.1500/- for repair charges but the machine did not come in working order. But now the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 11.8.2012 demanded a sum of Rs.8713/- in advance to repair the above said machine which is quite wrong, illegal  and against the warranty. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the above said machine or to pay the cost of machine i.e. Rs.16,500/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the separate written statement but the plea was found same.  Opposite parties have contending in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that the  said machine was of good quality  and the opposite parties had

                        Dr. Rajat Gupta Vs. Gokal Chand etc.

                                                …3…

sold such like machine to several other persons  and has never received any complaint from any corner. The machine was not sold to the complainant at Jind nor the office of opposite parties is situated within the area of District Jind  so this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant does not fall in the category of consumer as he is running hospital equipped with the health machine to use the same for commercial activities i.e. for earnings.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/- is prayed for.

3.        In evidence, the complainant has produced  his own affidavit  Ex. C-1, copy of cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of receipt book Ex. C-3, copies of letter Ex. C-4 and C-5 and copy of legal notice Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Gulshan Rai Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Raman Sood Ex. OP-2 and copy of warranty card Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased a Jogger’s trademill machine vide bill No.6064 dated 5.2.2012 for a sum of Rs.16,500/- from the opposite party No.1 Ex. C-2. The opposite parties gave  full guarantee/warrantee regarding any defect but did not issue guarantee/warrantee card. The said machine was defective from the very beginning and the complainant  made complaints to the opposite parties many a time. The opposite parties sent a

                        Dr. Rajat Gupta Vs. Gokal Chand etc.

                                                …4…

technician but he could not repair the defect of machine due to manufacturing fault in the said machine. The opposite parties charged Rs.1500/- on dated 8.6.2012 for repair charges from the complainant Ex. C-3. But the said machine did not come in working order and now opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 11.8.2012 demanded Rs.8,713/- in advance to repair the said machine Ex. C-5 which is quite wrong, illegal and against the warranty. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is alleged.

5.     On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the said machine was of good quality and the opposite parties had sold such like machine to several other persons and has never received any complaint from any other person. The complainant does not fall in the category of consumer and he is running hospital equipped with the health machine to use the same for commercial activities i.e. for earning. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that the opposite parties are ready only to repair the  said machine and not ready for any compensation.

6.     After going through the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties have failed to remove the defect of Jogger’s trademill machine and the said machine was within warranty period and it was obligatory either to repair or replace. Deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, in the interest of justice the complaint  of the complainant is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to repair the above said machine of complainant within a

                        Dr. Rajat Gupta Vs. Gokal Chand etc.

                                                …5…

period of one month after receiving the certified copy of this order. Parties will bear their own costs.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 9.1.2015

                                                                President,

 Member                                      District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind