Date of filing: 19.01.2018 Date of disposal: 06.12.2019
Complainant: Anowarul Azim Mondal, S/o. Late Abdus Sattar Mondal, resident of Naohat, PO: Ukhrid, PS: Khandaghosh, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Opposite Parties: ADI ROY HARDWARE STORE, represented by its Proprietor, having its office at 8/1, G. T. Road, Burdwan PO. & PS: Burdwan, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Shri Sailaranjan Das.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Saugata Dey.
J U D G E M E N T
The Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant had purchased one submersible pump set in 2010 for agricultural purposes and the said pump set functioned properly without any interruption till February, 2017. Thereafter the pump set was not functioning properly. Therefore, the complainant obtained expert opinion from Mondal Electrical who advised him to purchase a pump with voltage within 150-300 Volts.
The complainant approached Adi Ray Hardware Stores (hereinafter OP) on 30.03.2017 and requested to supply him a pump set as per expert advice. The OP supplied him a pump costing Rs. 20,400=00. Being a semi-literate person the complainant could not make out that he had again be supplied with a 220-440 Volts pump set. When the pump set was installed, it did not function and then the complainant was told by his son that the pump was not as per the specification given by the complainant.
The complainant rushed to the office of the OP and requested them to replace the pump as per specification. Since the OP did not agree to his request, being aggrieved the instant Consumer Complaint has been filed with the following prayers.
- Directing the OP to replace the submersible pump with a new one of Voltage within 150-300 or refund Rs. 20,400=00 along with interest @10% p.a. to the complainant after taking the disputed submersible pump from the complainant by holding them liable for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,
- Directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000=00 to the complainant towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment,
- Directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000=00 to the complainant towards litigation cost.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant argued that his client has purchased the submersible pump set in the year 2010 which functioned properly till 2017. Thereafter the pump set developed some problem. On consultation with an expert of Mondal Electricals, he was advised to install a pump of 6 HP with Voltage capacity between 150-300 Volts. Accordingly, on 30.03.2017 the complainant approached the OP and requested them to supply him a 6 HP submersible pump of 150-300 Volts. The ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that his client being a senior citizen and semi-literate person received the delivery of new submersible pump set from the OP in good faith and paid the consideration amount of Rs. 20,400=00 on 30.03.2017..
However, on installation of the same the pump set it did not work properly. Then he came to know with the help of his sons that the OP had supplied him a submersible pump set of 220-440 Volts instead of 150-300 Volts. The complainant approached the OP on 01.04.2017 and requested them to replace the pump set for a Volt of 150-300 Volts. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further submitted that as per condition within one month the pump set can be replaced if it is found defective. However, the OP refused to replace the pump with new one.
Since the complainant is senior citizen and taking advantage of that semi-literate person, the OP did not supply him the pump as per the specification, which was told by the complainant to the OP. Therefore, it amounts to unfair trade practice and as such his client is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP submits that the complaint has no merit and should be dismissed. The ld. Counsel for the OP pointed out that in the cash memo it was clearly written that the pump was 220-440 Volts. The same was also mentioned in the package of the submersible pump asset. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is no concept of semi-literate person in the eye of law. Ld. Counsel for the OP further submits that even though the OP was not liable to check the machine, as a matter of good will, they sent a mechanic to the field to check the newly supplied submersible pump set. As per the report of the technical expert of the Company, it was stated that “low discharge due to pump set selection wrong. Site volt low pump set STD model”. He further pointed out that the expert report annexed by the complainant with his petition bears the name of one Akbar Mallick residing at Badulia whereas the name of the complainant is Anarul Azim Mondal. From this, it is clear that this is a document, which was manufactured as an afterthought for the purpose of unlawful pecuniary gain. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
We have heard the submission made by the rival parties, perused the petition, written version and evidence-on-affidavit. It may be pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not file any reply to the questionnaires submitted by the OP even after being afforded seven adjournments. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that there is no concept of ‘semi-literate’ in the legal jargon or in literal jargon. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, a person who can read and write is stated as a literate person. When the complainant approached the OP it was his duty to check the specifications which was reportedly clearly mentioned on the package of the submersible pump set. Also we find from the cash memo, issued by the OP that it is clearly mentioned 220 to 440 Volt, thereby mentioning Voltage of the power. Since the voltage of the area is reportedly not in conformity with the voltage requirement of the submersible pump sold by the OP, for that the OP cannot be held responsible. Even then, as good gesture, they have got the pump inspected again and the report clearly states that there is no defect in the pump supplied by the OP.
Also we find that the expert opinion as attached by the complainant issued by one Mondal Electricals has been issued in the name of one Akbar Mallick of Badulia, whereas the name of the complainant is different and he is a resident of Naohat. Therefore, the authenticity of expert opinion is very much doubtful.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint made by the complainant and the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 11/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Sailaranjan Das) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Sailaranjan Das) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
