Order by
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased 1000 Liter Water Tank EURO worth Rs.4100/- vide bill dated 25.06.2015 from the Opposite Party. The complainant alleges that at the time of purchase of the said tank, the Opposite Party assured that the said water tank is perfect and also gave guarantee of any type of the defect for a period of 10 years and also assured that there will be no complaint of its manufacturing defect, but said tank was having leakage problem as the water cannot be stored in the said water tank. The complainant accompanied with his relative approached the Opposite Party and requested to replace the said water tank as there are also cracks in it and is not fir for its use, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant, rather insulted the complainant and hence the Opposite Party has rendered the deficient services. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party to replace the water tank in question, but the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and hence there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To replace the 1000 Liter Water tank EURO make or to refund its price of Rs.4,100/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment or any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint for the redressal of his grievance .
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to this District Consumer Commission with clean hands. Previously, the complaint was filed and decided by this District Consumer Commission on 16.07.2021 and the Opposite Party was directed to pay Rs.700/- and the complainant was offered to get water tank of his choice, but he did not come and hence the claim has already been settled as mentioned in the proceedings paras. Moreover, the complainant also moved a false application to ADC and the Hon’ble ADC has deputed to employees who visited the shop of the Opposite Party , but the complainant refused to get the water tank and the complainant has given threats to the Opposite Party without any rhyme or reason and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. On merits, the Opposite Party took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence the copy of his aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2 and his affidavit Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Amandeep Kumar, proprietor of Opposite Party firm Ex.OP1 and copy of his aadhar card Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.
5. We have heard the parties and also gone through the evidence produced on record.
6. The Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that he purchased 1000 Liter Water Tank EURO worth Rs.4,100/- vide bill dated 25.06.2015 from the Opposite Party. Copy of bill is placed on record as Ex.C2. Further contended that at the time of purchase of the said tank, the Opposite Party assured that the said water tank is perfect and also gave guarantee any type of the defect for a period of 10 years and also assured that there will be no complaint of its manufacturing defect, but said tank was having leakage problem and the water cannot be stored in the said water tank. The complainant accompanied with his relative approached the Opposite Party and requested to replace the said water tank as there are also cracks in it and is not fir for its use, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant, rather insulted the complainant and hence the Opposite Party has rendered the deficient services. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party to replace the water tank in question, but the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and hence there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. On the other hand, the representative of the Opposite Party repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not come to this District Consumer Commission with clean hands. Previously, the complaint was filed and decided by this District Consumer Commission on 16.07.2021 and the Opposite Party was directed to pay Rs.700/- and the complainant was offered to get water tank of his choice, but he did not come and hence the claim has already been settled as mentioned in the proceedings paras. Moreover, the complainant also moved a false application to ADC and the Hon’ble ADC has deputed to employees who visited the shop of the Opposite Party , but the complainant refused to get the water tank and the complainant has given threats to the Opposite Party without any rhyme or reason and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. It is not the denial of the parties that the complainant purchased 1000 Liter Water Tank EURO worth Rs.4,100/- vide bill dated 25.06.2015 from the Opposite Party. Copy of bill is placed on record as Ex.C2. The case of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of the said tank, the Opposite Party assured that the said water tank is perfect and also gave guarantee of any type of the defect for a period of 10 years which is specifically mentioned on the bill Ex. C2 itself. Moreover, this fact with regard to guaranteed has nowhere denied by the Opposite Party. Rather, the Opposite Party has filed the vague reply stating that the complainant has already settled the disputed in this respect in this District Consumer Commission, but no such proof or iota of evidence has been placed on record to prove such settlement if any arrived between the parties. Moreover, as per his own version, said Amandeep Kumar, proprietor of the Opposite Party has admitted that since the EURO has stopped to make such tank, however, he is ready and was always ready to replace the tank with new one of some other tank, as per the choice of the complainant, but the complainant did not turn up to receive the new tank and also stated that Opposite Party is still ready to replace the water tank in question.
9. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that the water tank in question is having manufacturing defect and to strengthen his version, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C3. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the water tank in question started leakage problem within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
10. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the price of the tank in question of Rs.4,100/- (Rupees four thousands one hundred only) against the return of old tank. Since, the complainant has already used the tank in question, for more than 6 years, so both the parties are left to bear their own costs. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 25.01.2022.
