SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1111118 |
Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai |
Decided On | Sep-15-2009 |
Case Number | First Appeal No.943 of 1999 (In Consumer Complaint No.235 of 1998) |
Judge | Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honâble Presiding Judicial Member Smt. S.P. Lale, Honâble Member |
Appellant | M/S. P.K. Shah and Sonâs Through Its Proprietor/Partner Shri Pravinchandra Kantilal Shah |
Respondent | Shri Shivaji M. Palkhede |
Oral Order:
Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal arises out of order/award dated 16/4/1999 passed in consumer complaint no.235/1998 Shri Shivaji Murlidhar Palkhede V/s. M/s.P.K.Shah and Sons by District Consumer Forum, Nasik. Complaint was partly allowed directing to replace the electric motor pump or to pay compensation of Rs.6000/- and, in addition to that, further awarded compensation of Rs.3000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, original O.P. preferred this appeal.
It is a case of respondent /original complainant Shri Shivaji M.Palkhede that he had purchased electric motor pump for Rs.6000/- on 24/6/1997 from appellant/original O.P. After 6 months of its purchase, there was some problem. Appellant replaced the said electric motor pump on 3/3/1998. When again said replaced electric motor pump developed problem, appellant refused to replace the same and therefore, claimed that he had suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/- towards the agriculture. This consumer complaint was filed by complainant Shri Shivaji M. Palkhede.
Appellant/org.O.P. denied the claim in toto and submitted that they are not responsible for any compensation as alleged. It is also alleged that complainant had not paid the full price of the electric motor pump.
Both the parties absent though notice of todays hearing by way of abundant precaution given to them under certificate of posting. We perused the record.
In the instant case, after replacement of the first electric motor pump free of cost, second electric motor pump when it developed problem after using it for six months, as it appears from the statement made in the complaint, appellant refused to replace the same. Except this factual situation, no other statement as to what is the nature of fault developed in the electric motor pump, nature of repairs it required or whether it had any manufacturing defect or otherwise is not alleged by the complainant. There must not be any manufacturing defect, otherwise, said motor pump would not have run for 6 months. No warranty is given on replaced pump.
Further, complainant did not adduce any evidence also to substantiate his complaint. Impugned order is just a summarization based upon hypothetical considerations which have no factual basis and thus, will not stand in the eyes of law. Under the circumstances, we hold accordingly and pass following order:-
Order:
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. In the result, original consumer compliant no.235/1998 stands dismissed.
3. In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.