State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Kulwant Singh Chandel vs Sh. Jagdish Chand And Another on 1 April, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal
No: 224/2012.
Date of Decision: 01.04.2013.
Sh. Kulwant Singh Chandel, S/o Sh. Birbal,
Proprietor,
Power and Control,
Near Asias
Highest Bridge,
Kandrour,
District Bilaspur, H.P.
Appellant.
Versus
1. Sh. Jagdish Chand, S/o late Sh. Longu Ram,
R/o
Village Jangla, Pargana Ghumarwin,
Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. Sh. Manoj Kumar alias Manju,
C/o Santosh Hardware Store,
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur,
H.P.
Respondents.
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.Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Ms.Madhurika Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: None.
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has appealed against the order dated 22.06.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against him by respondent-Jagdish Chand has been allowed and he (the appellant) is ordered to pay compensation of `50,000/- within thirty days alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `5,000/- as costs.
2. Respondent, Jagdish Chand, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that he had purchased two submersible pumps for `55,000/- from the appellant, on being persuaded by respondent No.2, Manoj Kumar. Pumps were purchased on 31.08.2007. They worked properly upto November, 2008, but thereafter they stopped working. Appellant was informed telephonically. A mechanic, by the name of Surinder deputed by the appellant, visited the site and intimated that panel control had developed a defect, which could be repaired only at the workshop. He then dismantled the panel control and took the same with him to the workshop of the appellant, but neither it was repaired nor replaced. Complainant, with a view to sawing his standing crop, had to purchase a new pump for `30,900/-. On these allegations, he prayed for issuance of a direction to the appellant to suitably compensate him and also to pay litigation cost.
3. Complaint was contested by the present appellant, who admitted that the panel control had been dismantled and brought to the workshop by his mechanic, but denied any deficiency in service. It was stated that the panel control had been repaired, but the respondent/complainant failed to pay the repair charges and to collect the panel control. Learned District Forum has concluded that the appellant was supposed to have repaired the submersible pumps free of cost and he having failed to do so, was guilty of deficiency in service. Consequently, the complaint has been allowed and the impugned order passed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Complainant/respondent nowhere alleged in the complaint that any warranty was given by the appellant at the time of sale of the pumps, leave alone disclosing the particulars of the warranty, like the period of warranty and the parts of pumps covered by the warranty. Appellant very categorically stated that pumps had been repaired, but the respondent/complainant did not pay the repair charges despite being apprised that the pumps stood repaired and he could collect the same on payment of charges.
6. Respondent/complainant in his rejoinder, though did state that there was a warranty issued by the appellant and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any charges, yet he did not state as to what was the length of the period of warranty nor did he produce the warranty papers.
Respondent/complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence and in the affidavit also, he did not say that at the time of sale of the pumps any warranty was given. Under these circumstances, appellant cannot be said to have committed any deficiency in service by demanding repair charges.
7. Learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant says that the respondent/complainant was ready and willing to pay the repair charges, but the appellant never disclosed the amount. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. It has not been the case of the respondent/complainant that he was prepared to pay the repair charges. In fact, in the rejoinder he pleaded that the pumps being under warranty, no charges were playable, and this he specifically stated in rejoinder to that para of the appellants reply, in which he stated that repair charges having not been paid, the pumps remained with him.
8. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and the complaint dismissed.
9. 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 April 01, 2013.
*DC Dhiman* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?