LAWS(NCD)-2001-12-106

SURAJ PARKASH Vs. JOGI REFRIGERATORS

Decided On December 26, 2001
SURAJ PARKASH Appellant
V/S
JOGI REFRIGERATORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed by Sh. Suraj Parkash against M/s. Jogi Refrigerators, 9, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, through its proprietor, Sh. Joga Singh seeking issuance of direction to the opposite party to replace the defective machine or refund the cost of machine amounting to Rs.28,300/- along with interest @18% p. a. w. e. f.22.5.2000 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation for loss of earning, mental agony and harassment. A sum of Rs.5,500/- has been claimed as costs of the complaint.

(2.) The averments made in the complaint dated 7th March, 2001 stated briefly are that the complainant purchased a new Ice-cream making machine from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.28,300/- vide Cash Memo No.245 dated 22.5.2000. The photocopy of the cash memo was placed on record as Annexure C-1. It is alleged that the opposite party assured about the best after-sale service and gave written warranty for one year against the workmanship. The Ice-cream Machine was installed at village Balongi. After a few days, it has been contended the machine started giving problems and failed to function properly. The complainant informed the opposite party, firstly on phone and subsequently during personal visits about the non-working of the machine but the opposite party did not take any steps to check, repair or replace the defective machine. It has been contended that the complainant suffered irreparable loss to the tune of Rs.5 lacs on account of loss of earning including expenditure on raw material, payment of interest and other expenses like rent, electric charges etc. According to the averments made in the complaint the opposite party was deficient in providing the promised services. A complaint had been filed initially before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar on 14.9.2000, which was returned to the complainant on 16.12.2000 for want of jurisdiction vide copy Annexure C-2. It was mentioned that the cause of action arose in the first week of June, 2000, thereafter from day to day.

(3.) The opposite party, in response to the notice of the complaint filed written reply. It was alleged that the machine has been purchased for commercial purpose and as such the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission. It has also been contended that the averments made in the complaint are vague as the complainant has not specified any particular defect in the machine. The complainant, it was alleged runs business of selling softy ice-creams and he has not suffered any loss due to alleged non-functioning of the Ice-cream Machine. The allegation of deficiency in service has been denied. It has also been denied that there was any defect of any kind in the machine.