State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Krishan Kumar vs Sikand And Co. on 26 June, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA, CAMP AT DHARAMSHALA.
First Appeal
No: 233/2009.
Date of
Decision: 26.06.2012.
Sh. Krishan Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Saran Dogra,
R/o Vill. & P.O. Sarotri,
Tehsil Baroh, Distt. Kangra, H.P.
Appellant
Versus
Sikand and Co.,
37, Industrial Area, Nagrota
Bagwan,
Tehsil & Distt. Kangra,
Through its Manager
Kirpal Singh, s/o late Shri Nand
Singh.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. A.S. Rana, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2009, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, stands dismissed.
2. Appellant purchased Recon Engine for his old vehicle from the respondent, on 04.04.2006, for a sum of Rs.42,522/-. Out of the aforesaid amount of money, a sum of Rs.22,522/- was paid. The remaining amount of Rs.21,784/- remained unpaid. According to the complainant, the engine, which he had purchased, was defective inasmuch as it consumed more quantity of mobile oil than a new engine is supposed to consume. He brought this fact to the notice of the respondent, who were unable to remove the defect. With these allegations, appellant filed a complaint against the respondent, seeking issuance of a direction to replace the engine with a new one, to pay Rs.8,000/- to compensate him for the money already spent by him on the repair of the engine and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages for harassment and mental torture.
3. Complaint was contested by the respondent. It was stated that that there was no defect in the engine.
Defect was stated to be in Turbo Charger and other parts and the warranty card specifically provided that in case the engine did not work satisfactorily because of some defect in Turbo Charger or other named parts of the vehicle, then the warranty would not be applicable. It was also stated that the plea raised by the appellant was nothing but counterblast to a civil suit filed by the respondent to claim the unpaid portion of the price, i.e. an amount of Rs.21,784/-.
4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint accepting the plea of the respondent. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is made out from the material on record that the appellant raised the issue of engine being defective, in writing, for the first time on 18.09.2006, when replying to a notice received from the respondent for payment of the remaining amount of money. Notice, which he received from the respondent, was dated 04.09.2006. Appellants reply to the said notice is dated 18.09.2006 and its copy is Annexure OP8. In this reply it was stated that the engine had consumed one liter of mobile oil for covering 300 kms., though normally an engine consumes one liter of mobile oil for 1,000 kms.
7. Respondent placed on record copy of job card, Annexure OP6, per which Turbo Charger had been replaced on payment of Rs.150/- as labour charges. Copy of warranty card, Annexure OP17, per condition No.6, provides that damage to the engine due to failure of any other sub-assembly like FIP, water pump, turbo charger, alternator and starter etc. in case of long/short block not fitted/supplied by Recon Division or by the agent of respondent/dealer/TASS, is not covered under the warranty.
8. Job card shows that the vehicle had been taken to the workshop of the respondent only once and the job pertained to replacement of Turbo Charger. There is no evidence on record showing that the engine, in fact, consumed more mobile oil than it was supposed to normally consume, except the allegation in the aforesaid reply, copy Annexure OP8, and this allegation was made only after the appellant received the demand notice from the respondent for payment of the remaining price of the engine.
9. It will not be out of place to mention that both the parties admit that a civil suit for recovery of the unpaid portion of the price has been filed by the respondent against the appellant, which after having been decided by the trial Court, is now pending with the appellate Court.
10. In view of above stated position, we see no merit in the present appeal.
The same is, therefore, dismissed.
11. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member June 26, 2012.
*DC Dhiman* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?