DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.10/22.1.2009 Decided on : 18.5.2009 Vinod Kumar son of Suraj Bhan, resident of Boha, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Vijay Kumar Jhalbuti Wala proprietor, Singla Pump & Motors, Bus Stand Boha, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: Sh. S.K. Bansal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. J.R. Gupta, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. 1. This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Suraj Bhan, resident of Boha, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against Sh. Vijay Kumar Jhalbuti Wala, proprietor, Singla Pump & Motors, Bus Stand Boha, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, for replacement, of Tullu pump, purchased by him, with new Tullu pump of same description or in the alternative, for refund of Rs. 2500/-, paid as sale consideration, to the opposite party and for payment of compensation, in the sum of, Rs. 20,000/, for mental and physical agony and in addition to costs, for filing of the complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:- 2. That on 28.10.2008, on the eve of Diwali, complainant approached, opposite party, for purchase of Tullu pump 1/2BHP and the opposite party, gave assurance,s to the complainant, that Tullu pump shown to him, is of best quality. He also gave guarantee, for its proper functioning Contd....2.... : 2 : for a period of one year, upon which the complainant, paid a sum, of Rs. 2550/- and purchased the said electric motor, being used for accelerating the process of drawing of water from water pipe. After installation, of the Tullu pump, at his village, it meant defective within, a fortnight about which intimation, was conveyed, by the complainant, to the opposite party, who bring it to his shop. In compliance to the same, the complainant took the tulu pump, to the shop, of the opposite party, who retained it, for couple of days, with the assurance, that he will return it, after removal of defect. As the complainant again, visited his shop, for fetching his Tullu pump purchased by him, the opposite party, after prolonging the matter, about a week ago. The complainant accompanied, by one of his friends, again went to the shop of the opposite party, to fetch, his tulu pump, but he informed him that it had been burnt, as such same, cannot be put in order. The complainant told the opposite party, that defect has been occurred, in the Tullu pump within the guarantee period, as such, it be replaced, with new one of same description, but the opposite party refused, to oblige the complainant, asked him to issue the bill and disclose, the name of its firm and its address. He also warned the opposite party, if he failed to do so , then he will approach, the consumer forum, after which he lost his mental balance and started using filthy language. He also pulled the complainant out of his shop, as such there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, because of which complainant, has suffered mental and physical harassment and has wasted his valueable time and also spent unavoidable expenses in filing of complaint. Hence the complaint. 2. On being put to notice, the opposite party, filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant is not entitled to reliefs, prayed for, as he has misrepresented the facts, in the complaint; that complainant has neither purchased Tulu pump, from the opposite party nor he ever visited, his shop, for removal of defect therein. He has also submitted, that in fact opposite party is running his business, in the name and style of M/s Vijay Iron and Tubewell Store at Boha, where the complainant approached him, for purchase of submersible Contd....3... : 3 : pump on credit and when opposite party refused, to accede to his request, he started bearing grudge against him and in order to settle the same, he has filed, the instant complaint. It is submitted, that opposite party has no concern, with M/s Singla Pump and Motors at Boha, but the complainant involved him, in the complaint, on the basis of no evidence of purchase. For the aforesaid reason stated above, the complaint does not fall within the ambit of the Act and complaint, is bad for non joinder of necessary party. On merits, averments, made in the preliminary objections, has been reiterated and it has been specifically denied, that the complainant has purchased Tullu pump, from the shop of the opposite party or has any concern with M/s Singla Pump and Motors, Boha. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer for dismissal, of the complaint, was made with costs. 4. On being called, upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ext. C-1, photo copy of documents Ext. C-2 to C-12 and affidavit Ext. 13 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence, photo copy of documents Ext. Op-1 to OP-7 and affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar, Ext. OP-8 and closed his evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the out set, the counsel for the complainant, Sh. S.K. Bansal, Advocate, has drawn our attention, to photographs of shop of opposite party, wherein he has been described, as proprietor of his firm and has argued, that the visit of the complainant, to his shop has been admitted by the opposite party. Learned counsel has also argued, that the complainant has placed, on record documentary evidence, that he and his wife are employees and he is a man of means, as such he was not expected, to file a complaint, for refund of petty amount and to involve the opposite party in false case. Learned counsel has also argued, that mere fact that complainant was involved in some criminal case, with some other person, does not mean Contd...4... : 4 : that he is a person of quarrelsome nature, as such he is entitled, to relief prayed, in the complaint. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party, Sh. J.R. Gupta, Advocate has submitted, that the complainant, has neither produced purchase invoice, nor he has examined his friend, who accompanied him, in the shop of opposite party, for return of Tulu pump deposited with him, for removal of the defect, whereas opposite party, has produced documentary proof, that he runs business, in the name and style, as sole proprietor, as such complainant, cannot succeed, on the basis of his own affidavit and photographs of shop of opposite party, tendered in evidence. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention, copy of judgment passed by criminal court in case FIR No. 40 registered on 11.5.2002, against the opposite party and has argued, that complainant is a man of quarrelsome nature and has filed the instant complaint, to settle the grudge, for his refusal to sale him submersible pump on credit. Learned counsel has urged, that complaint being false, is liable, to be dismissed. 8. We do not find merit, in the argument advanced, by the learned counsel for the complainant, because he has not produced on record purchase invoice, showing purchase of Tullu pump, from the shop run by the opposite party. He has also not examined any witness, in whose presence he purchased, the Tullu pump from the opposite party and even his friend, who accompanied him for return thereof subsequently to the shop of the opposite party, who has been consistant, in his plea, that he runs his business at Boha in the name and style of M/s Vijay Iron and Tubewell Store, Boha deals in submersible pumps. In order to prove the said fact, he has produced several documents, including copies of purchase invoices, showing the sale of material, to different persons of different places, between 27.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 Ext. OP-1 to OP-4. He has also produced, copy of ledger sheet, of his firm Ext. OP-6, in which factum of sale of Tullu pump to the complainant, is not mentioned. The complainant may be the man of means and employee, as evident from documents Ext. C-4 to C-13 but in the absence of documentary proof of purchase Contd...5.... : 5 : of Tullu pump by him, from the shop of opposite party, the liability cannot be fastened, upon the opposite party on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It may not be of place to mention, that the complainant is not an illiterate, rural rustic person but a Government employee, as per his own version. As such he was expected to insist for issuance of purchase invoice, on the date of purchase so, that opposite party could not wriggle out and frustrate his claim. He has produced on record, photographs Ext. C-2 and C-3, to establish, that opposite party, is running business at Boha and is proprietor of a firm, known as M/s Singla Pump and Motors. The careful perusal of these photographs reveals, that opposite party deal in submersible pump sets and not with Tullu pumps. The name of firm of the opposite party, is also not mentioned, either of the photographs, although he has described himself to be proprietor of his firm and resident of village Jhalbuti Wala, and the complainant has not brought, any record, to establish, that any other firm, in the name and style of Singla Pump and Motors carries on business at Boha and opposite party is also proprietor thereof. 9. After balancing the probabilities of evidence, adduced on the record by the parties, we have come to the conclusion, that the complainant has failed to establish, that he has purchased Tullu pump, from the shop of the opposite party and there was deficiency in service, on his part, to remove the defect or repair, the same within guarantee given to him. He has not even bothered to produce on record, period of guarantee card issued by the opposite party, although he has claimed, the said fact in the complaint. In the light of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 10. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 18.5.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President
