Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/318

Gurjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s U.K. Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Singh Atwal

20 Mar 2017

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        318       

Date of Institution :   4.11.2016

Date of Decision :     20.03.2017

Gurjit Singh aged about 45 years, s/o Sh Chand Singh r/o village Mal Ke, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga.                             .....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s U K Traders, Old Factory Road, Kotkapura through its partner Mrs Sushma Garg w/o Umesh Garg.
2. M/s Euro Containers, Village Saidpura, Barwala Road, Dera Bassi, District Mohali through its Prop./partner.                           ..........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Pardeep Singh Atwal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              OP-2  Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective water tanks and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased two Reva water tanks of 1000 L each from OP-1 vide bill dated 25.05.2016 which are manufactured by OP-2 and installed the same at his premises as per instructions of OPs, but after few days, said water tanks started leaking from joints due to some manufacturing defect and complainant complained about this fact to OP-1, who replaced the same on 6.06.2016, but replaced tanks also had the same defect. Complainant again approached OPs and made request to replace the said tanks, but all in vain and instead of replacing the same, OPs kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to provide new water tanks and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                            Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.11.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                       OP-1 filed reply through counsel, wherein admitted that tanks in question were purchased by complainant from answering OP and it is also admitted that said tanks were defective and on complaint by complainant, OP-1 replaced the said tanks on the directions of OP-2. It is further admitted that complainant approached OP-1 for replacement of reinstalled tanks, but denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that OP-1 forwarded the complaint of complainant to OP-2, who miserably failed to replace the said tanks. It is further contended that answering OP has discharged its services and liability by forwarding the complaint of complainant to OP-2, but deficiency if any, that is on the part of OP-2 as OP-2 is the manufacturer of said tanks and guarantee and warrantee is given by OP-2 and liability for replacement of defective tanks lies only with them. It is further averred that OP-1 has fully accommodated with complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.           

5           Registered cover containing complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-2, but it did not receive back undelivered. It is presumed that OP-2 has sufficient notice of complaint and OP-2 is stands served and acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Nobody appeared in the Forum either in person or through counsel to contest the complaint, therefore, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.01.2017.       

6        Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sushma Garg as Ex OP-1/1 and  documents Ex OP-1/2 to 11 and then, closed the same.

8        We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents adduced by complainant as well as opposite party.

9                       Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased two water tanks of 1000 L each from OP-1 vide bill dated 25.05.2016 which are manufactured by OP-2 and installed the same at his premises as per instructions of OPs, but after few days, said water tanks started leaking from joints due to some manufacturing defect. Complainant complained about this fact to OP-1, who replaced the said tanks on 6.06.2016, but replaced tanks also had the same defect. Complainant again approached OPs and made request to replace the said tanks, but OPs kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

10               To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued before the Forum that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. However, it is admitted by OP-1 that tanks in question were purchased by complainant from him and it is also admitted that said tanks were defective and were having leakage problem and on complaint by complainant, OP-1 replaced the said tanks on the directions of OP-2. It is further admitted that complainant approached him for replacement of reinstalled tanks, but denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and asserted that they forwarded the complaint of complainant to OP-2, who miserably failed to replace the said tanks. It is further contended that OP-1 has discharged its services and liability by forwarding the complaint of complainant to OP-2, but deficiency if any, that is on the part of OP-2 as OP-2 is the manufacturer of said tanks and guarantee and warrantee is given by OP-2 and liability for replacement of defective tanks lies only with them. It is further averred that OP-1 has fully accommodated with complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                         The case of the complainant is that he purchased two water tanks from OP-1 against a proper bill, but said tanks were defective and were having leakage problem. On complaint by complainant, OP-1 replaced the leaking tanks, but replaced tanks were also having the same problem of leakage. Complainant made requests to OPs, but they did not pay heed to his requests and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to complainant. In reply, OP-1 admitted that tanks in question were purchased from him and were replaced as per warranty condition on directions of OP-2. OP-1 stressed mainly on the point that he has fully accommodated the complainant as he did his responsibility of forwarding the complaint of complainant to OP-2 well and there is no deficiency in service on his part. It is further averred that OP-2 is liable to replace the said tanks as guarantee and warrantee if any that is given by OP-2 being the manufacture and complainant has no role to make any replacement as he is mere a shopkeeper and he has done his duty of forwarding the complaint of complainant to OP-2. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12                From the careful perusal of record, it is observed that it is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased the said water tanks, which are manufactured by OP-2 and there was warranty of five years on the said water tanks against any defect, but despite replacement by OP-1, said tanks again started leaking from joints. Plea taken by OP-1 that he has forwarded the complaint of complainant to OP-2 seems genuine as he has done his part of job and being a shopkeeper he can not do anything beyond the instructions of OP-2. It is observed that there is deficiency on the part of OP-2, who should have sent their articles to market after proper checks and being manufacturer, only OP-2 is liable to replace the said water tanks and provide best services to its customers.

13               From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that complaint is entitled to get replaced the defective water tanks. Therefore, present complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2. OP-2 is directed to replace the water tanks purchased by complainant with new one of same capacity against proper warrantee as per satisfaction of complainant. There seems to be no role of OP-1 in present complaint, therefore complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 20.03.2017

Member                President                                          (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)