Brij Mohan Shama (Advocate) son of Shri Amla Nand, resident of 121-K.V. M. Colony, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, 141008.

(Complainant)
Vs.

1. M/s Dhand Traders, Main Road, Opp. DMC Hospital, Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, through its partner/proprietor.

2. M/s Hindustan Sanitaryware Industries 11-B, Main Pusa Road, IInd Floor, Tiwari House, New Delhi-5, through its director/manager. (Opposite party)

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
…………….

Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Bhagat, Member.

Present:
Sh. V.K. Sharma Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Partap Rajta Representative of opposite parties.

O R D E R
T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:


1. Complainant purchased EWC seat vide invoice no.56 dated 25.4.2007 for Rs.11,175/- from opposite party no.1, which was manufactured by opposite party no.2. When he was getting fixed EWC seat through plumber in his house, noticed crack and that its water tank was not working properly. So, opposite party no.1 was approached requesting him to replace the seat. He was assured that needful will be done within a week but evaded replacing it despite repeated requests. Subsequently on 22.6.07, employee of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant, checked the seat and promised to replace it. But when they failed, complainant served legal notices dated 14.4.08 and 26.4.08 which remained unanswered. Opposite parties have failed to replace the defective seat and consequently alleging deficiency in service filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, claiming cost of the seat as well as litigation expenses Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.


2. Opposite parties in their reply submitted that the seat was replaced on 2.9.08, qua which complainant had given a letter to them. Now, he is coercing them to change the cistern without any reason and rhyme, so, the complaint has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed.


3. In order to prove their contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.


4. We have heard the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the complainant and representative of the opposite parties and gone through the record and other material on record.


5. It was admitted by the complainant that EWC seat was replaced by the opposite party on 2.9.2008. But his grouse is that cistern of the seat was not changed and is defective. Ex.R.1 is the letter dated 2.9.2008 given by the complainant to opposite party no.2 confirming replacement of the EWC seat. He had given a note thereon the company was not changing the cistern. In affidavit Ex.RW1/A Sh. Pratap Rajta authorised officer of the opposite party no.2 has stated that EWC seat was replaced to satisfaction of the complainant. As per his affidavit EWC seat is a different item from cistern. In his notices, complainant never alleged that cistern was defective.


6. Cracked EWC seat was changed or replaced by opposite party free of cost but it was done on 2.9.2008, after the complainant was compelled to file this complaint on 21.7.2008 after serving notice Ex.C.3 dated 14.4.2008 and Ex.C.2 dated 26.4.08.


7. There is no proof on the record that original cistern sold along with EWC seat had any defect. Neither the complainant got cistern tested or examined from any expert. His mere allegation in this behalf will not prove defect in the cistern. Hence, we can not conclude that cistern sold by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant was defective.


8. Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party is writ large as defective EWC which was having cracks despite repeated demands and requests of the complainant was not replaced. They compelled him to give legal notice, but failed to redress his grievances. Complainant was forced to file the complaint and during the pendency of the complaint EWC seat was changed. Such act of the opposite party certainly would amount to deficiency in service and resorting to unfair trade practice by selling cracked EWC seat to the complainant. Therefore, we allow this complaint and as a result of discussions, we award compensation of Rs.1000/-(Rs.One Thousand only) to the complainant and order opposite parties to pay him litigation cost of Rs.500/-(Rs. Five Hundred only). Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.