DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 115 of 02-05-2019

Decided on : 26-08-2021

Anil Jain, Advocate aged about 50 years S/o Sh. Ved Raj Jain, Court Road, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. Yeekay Technocrat Pvt. Ld., (Corporate Office) Plot No. 1 & 4, Block -H, N.I.T. Faridabad through its M.D./A.R.

2. M/s. Fusion Industries Ltd., Plot No. 9, 2^nd Floor, Local Shopping Centre, H & J Vihar, Sarita Vihar (Above Barista), New Delhi 110 076 through its M.D./Proprietor

3. M/s. Bansal & Sons, Nohria Street, Main G.T. Road, Bathinda 151 001 through its Proprietor

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Rajan Singla, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Exparte

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Anil Jain (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against M/s Yeekay Technocrat Pvt. Ltd., and others, (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on the allurement opposite party No. 3 sold to complainant three layered water tank of 1000 Ltrs capacity with brand name 'ROCK' having 30 years guarantee, as mentioned on tank, manufactured by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainant purchased the said water tank vide Cash Memo No. 475 dated 22-9-2012 for Rs. 5300/-.

3. It is alleged that in the month of August, 2018, said water tank started leaking from its joint. The tank was got checked by local mechanic/technical expert of opposite party No. 3 and he verbally disclosed that said tank is having manufacturing defect. The matter was reported to manufacturer i.e. opposite parties No. 1 & 2. They sent their technical person namely Manphool, who after checking it, also concluded that tank is having manufacturing defect, but refused to give anything in writing on the plea that opposite parties stopped him for doing so. He also sent photographs of damaged water tank to opposite parties.

4. The complainant has alleged that he contacted the opposite parties time and again for replacement of the defective water tank as the same is within guarantee, but they refused to replace the same with new one. Due to non-replacement of water tank, the leaked water spread all over roof of the house and roof started simmering. The complainant suffered mental tension and financial loss due to this act of the opposite parties.

5. It is pleaded that due to non-replacement of water tank which was having manufacturing defect, the complainant was compelled to purchase another water tank for Rs. 8500/- and spent Rs. 2,000/- again for installation. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties in this regard, but to no effect. The complainant has further alleged that he time and again requested the opposite parties to replace the defective water tank with new one or refund its price, but nothing was done by them. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the cost of water tank i.e. Rs. 5300/- and pay Rs. 10,500/- towards cost and installation charges of new water tank with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and mental agony and pains besides Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

6. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and dasti notice to opposite party No. 3. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against all the opposite parties.

7. The complainant led exparte evidence.

8. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of cash memo (Ex. C-1), photographs of water tank (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5), photocopy of cash memo & receipt (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-8) photocopy of postal receipts (Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-11), photocopy of Guarantee Card (Ex. C-12) and affidavit dated 1-5-2019 of complainant (Ex. C-13).

9. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

10. The submission of learned counsel for complainant is that on 22-9-2017 complainant purchased one water tank of 1000 ltrs capacity from opposite party No. 3, manufactured by opposite party No. 1 & 2, for Rs. 5300/-. The said water tank started leaking from its joint. The complainant time and again requested the opposite parties to replace the defective water tank with new one but they did not do so although there is guarantee of 30 years of the tank in question. He further submitted that due to leakage of water tank, water spread all over the roof due to which roof started simmering. Under compelled circumstances, complainant purchased another water tank and got it installed by spending Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions of learned counsel complainant and gone through the record.

12. A persual of record reveals that vide Ex. C-1 complainant purchased one water tank of 1000 Ltrs capacity 'Fusion' Tripple Layer for Rs. 5300/- from opposite party No. 3. Photographs Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5 shows mark of leakage of water tank and further stamp of 30 years gurantee on water tank itself. The complalinant has also placed on record Guaratee Card of Fusion make Water Tank issued by Yeekay Technocrat Pvt. Ltd. i.e. opposite parties No. 1 & 2 (Ex. C-12), which shows that water tank in question is within guarantee period.

13. The complainant has pleaded that opposite parties have not replaced his defective water tank with new one despite his repeated requests and due to leakage, water spread all over the roof and roof started simmering which forced him to spend further amount to purchase another water tank and get it installed. This contention of complainant is proved vide Ex. C-6 which relveals that he purchased water tank worth Rs. 8500/- on 13-9-2018 from Bharat Glass House, Bathinda and got it installed by spending further amount of Rs. 2,000/- vide receipt Ex. C-9. The opposite parties failed to rebut the evidence of complainant. The opposite parties sold the product by saying that there is guarantee of 30 years and also affixed stamp of guarantee of 30 years on the product but the product does not confirm to express guarantee. Fixation of guarantee stamp on product and supply of guarantee card should not be taken as a mere formality rather it creates liability on the opposite parties. Therefore, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling the defective/inferior quality water tank to complainant and not providing service and attending his complaints when he faced problem due to their fault,

14. Resultantly, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation against all the opposite partie. The opposite parties are further directed to refund Rs. 5300/- to complainant.

15. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

16. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases and vacancy of post of members.

17. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    26-08-2021

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member