District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.631/2019.
Date of Institution: .24.12.2019.
Date of Order: 18.11.2022.
M/s. Gentel Electricals Private Limited, Pandit Place, Tigaon Road, Sector-3, Tehsil and Post Ballabgarh, District Faridabad through its Director- Shri Sunil Sharma.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Rekha Upadhyay proprietor of M/s. R.V.Power Solution, House No. 8C, LIG flat, Block NO. 02, Sector-99, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301.
2. M/s. Eaton, Cluster C, Wing-1, EON Free Zone, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Survey No. 77, Plot NO.1, EON Free Zone, Kharadi, Pune, Maharashtra – 411014 through its Dikrector Mrt. Nitin Shridhar Chalke.
Also at:
Unit No. A1 and B1, Third Floor, TDI Center, Plot No.7, Jasola, New Delhi – 110 025.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………..…Member.
PRESENT: Sh. R.K.Taneja , counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 18.3.2021.
Sh. Rajesh Khanna , counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant being the customer of the opposite parties had purchased one UPS (EATON 9390) 40 KVA (alongwith Battery 12 V 42 AH Amaron Qounta) from opposite party No.1 on 24.09.2018 vide Tax invoice No. 15-17 for Rs.2,76,720/- who was the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2, manufacturer of the said UPS and the complainant had purchased the said UPS for his personal use to earn his livelihood and to ease of earning his livelihood. From the last seven months the above said UPS was not working properly and causing huge loss of work to the complainant. The complainant informed opposite party No.1 about this problem telephonically a number of times, but the complainant did not receive any satisfactory reply form opposite party no.1. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 neither repaired nor replaced the said UPS since the same was under warrantee and it was the legal obligation of opposite party No.1 either to repair or replace the said UPS. The complainant sent legal notice dated 27.08.2019 through their counsel by registered post to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) replace the faulty UPS.
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) Any other relief which may deem fit by this Hon’ble Forum may kindly be ordered/awarded in faovur of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 received back duly served but despite service he was not present. Tracking details also filed in which item Delivery Confirmed. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.3.2021.
2. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was alleging defects in the goods manufactured by opposite party No.2. However, the complainant had failed to point out the nature and specific defects complained of. The complainant was making unsubstantiated averments against opposite party No.2 without even disclosing the unique number/code of the UPS (Eaton 9390) 40 KVA (alongwith battery 12V 42AH Amaron Qounta) (Hereafter “Product”) enabling the opposite party No.2 to trace out the details of the product from its records. Opposite party No.2 was the manufacturer of the subject product and the liability of opposite party No.2, if any was limited to the extent of terms of standard warranty. Since the complainant had neither provided the unique number/code of product nor contacted the opposite party No.2 at any point of time seeking redressal of its grievance, opposite party No.2 was not in contraventions of any of its obligation arising out of the standard warranty or otherwise. Hence no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant and against opposite party No.2. It was not disputed that the subject product was purchased by the complainant against a tax invoice in the name of M/s. Gentel Electricals Private Limited. The complainant, by virtue of it it being a Pvt. Ltd. company, was purposely engaged in several commercial transactions to earn profits and/or generate revenue. The Article of
Association of the complainant, which was conveniently not being placed on record by the complainant, would reveal the purpose of incorporation of the company. It was submitted that nothing was placed on record by the complainant to prove that the said product was purchased only for the use of any of the Director of the complainant to earn his/her livelihood. Hence, since the product was purchased on the company’s name to help the complainant in carrying out commercial transactions and/to earn profits, the complainant was not a “Consumer” in terms of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opposite part No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – M/s. R.V.Power Solutions & Others with the prayer to a) replace the faulty UPS. b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) Any other relief which may deem fit by this Hon’ble Forum may kindly be ordered/awarded in faovur of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/1 – affidavit of Sunil Sharma, Director, M/s. Gental Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Pandit Place, Tigaon road, Sector-3, TEhsil and Post Ballabagh, District Faridabad, Ex.C-1 (colly) – Certificate of incorporation, Ex.C-2 – Resolution, Ex.C-3 (colly) – Tax invoice,, Ex. C-4 – legal notice, Ex. C-5 to C-8 – postal receipts, Ex.C-9 & 10– Track consignment,, Ex.C-11 – photo of serial number sticker pasted upon the UPS.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2 strongly agitated and opposed . As per the evidence of the opposite party, Ex.R-1 – Resolution,, Ex.R-2 – warranty , Ex.R-3 – Reply to legal notice.
6. It is evident from Tax invoice dated 24.09.2018 vide Ex.C-3 ,the complainant has purchased one UPS (EATON 9390) 40 KVA (alongwith Battery 12 V 42 AH Amaron Qounta) from opposite party No.1 on 24.09.2018 for an amount of Rs.2,76,720/- who is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2,manufacturer of the said UPS and the complainant had purchased the said UPS for his personal use to earn his livelihood. From the last seven months the above said UPS is not working properly and causing huge loss of work to the complainant.
7. During the course of arguments, counsel for opposite party No.2 has given a certificate dated 7th February 2022 in which it has been stated that “We hereby declare and confirm that Eaton Power Quality Pvt. Ltd. Has discontinued the production of its product UPS Eaton 9390 series in the year 2014.”
8. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party No.1 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.1.
9. Opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the UPS in question with the same model to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old UPS in question to the opposite party No.1 after
receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 18.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
