Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/22/2016

Krishan Singla, Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jaquar and Company (P) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar Adv.

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	22/2016
Date of Institution	:	07.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	05.07.2016

 

                                                

                                                         

 

Krishan Singla, Advocate, H.No.2360/2, Madiwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       M/s Jaquar & Co. (P) Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory Sh.Sandeep Singh Vasir, SCO 52-53, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

2.       Super Market, through its Owner, SCO No.8, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh (earlier M/s Brij Bhushan Lal Jain &Co., Authorized agent of M/s Jaquar Co.).

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Manpreet Singh Longia, Advocate for OP No.1

                   Opposite Party No.2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased some bathroom fittings like spout, top, over-heal, SI Arm etc. vide Invoice dated 29.03.2012 for Rs.3084/- from OP No.2, who is authorized dealer of OP No.1, having warranty of ten years.  It has further been averred that the products were faulty, spout was broken into two pieces. Therefore, he reported the matter to OP No.2 who refused to entertain and advised him to lodge the complaint at the helpline of OP No.1. Accordingly, he made a number calls on the given number but to no effect. Finally, he got served a legal notice (Annexure C-2) upon the OPs, but the same failed to yield any result. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In the written statement filed by OP No.1, the factum of purchase of the products in question has been admitted. However, it has been pleaded that on receipt of the complaint regarding diverter only on 05.12.2015, the complainant was contacted by the service engineer but he stated that he was out of station for a few days and was not available. The copy of the form showing the aforesaid events is Annexure R-1/1. He further stated that he would register his complaint again as and when he would come back and as such the service request was cancelled with the aforesaid remarks.  It has further been pleaded that on 06.02.2016, a happy call was made to the complainant asking his feedback and he apprised it regarding the handling issues problem faced by him.  However, on inspection of the products, it was found by the service engineer that it was only the handling /fitting problem. It has further been pleaded that the complainant pointed out five issues and the service engineer fixed the four issues on the spot as they were only fitting issues. As far as the fifth issue was concerned, it was a case of broken spout which was taken for replacement vide Annexure R-1/2 and the same was installed on 17.02.2016 vide Annexure R-1/3. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP No.1 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.           OP No.2 did not appear despite due service, hence it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.02.2016.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           During the course of the arguments, the Counsel for the complainant argued that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed by OP No.1 after filing of the instant complaint and as such he be awarded compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment etc.  
7.           It is evident from the documents on record that when the grouse of the complainant has not been redressed despite his repeated requests, he served a legal notice (Annexure C-2) upon the OPs on 30.11.2015.  However, the plea of the OP No.1 is that the complainant for the first time made a call at the toll free number on 05.12.2015.  Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that complainant approached OP No.1 for the first time on 05.12.2015 even then it took about two and half months to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant. To justify their plea that the delay, if any, has occurred on the part of the complainant, OP No.1 took a plea that it is the complainant who mentioned his wrong address in the service request. However, this plea of OP No.1 cannot be accepted as they were having the contact number of the complainant and they could have easily made a call to know his address and even they could give a call to its authorized dealer i.e. OP No.2 from whom the complainant purchased the goods in question.  Otherwise also, there was no reason for the complainant to give his wrong address to OP No.1.  Moreover, it is evident from Annexure R-1/2 that OP No.1 took the spout for replacement on 06.02.2016 and the same was replaced after a lapse of 11 days vide job sheet dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure R-1/3). Had OP No.1 redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant within a reasonable period then the matter certainly would have been different. However, it took almost two and half months to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant.  Due to the indifferent attitude of OP No.1, the complainant has to knock the doors of this Forum to get redress his grievance. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that ends of justice would be met if a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,500/- is awarded to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment and litigation.
8.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to the OP to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation. This order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.
9.           The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05.07.2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER