USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs COLONEL D.C. SOOD

THIS appeal filed by M/s. Usha International Limited is directed against the order dated 6.7.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 2054 of 1999. The said complaint was filed by the respondent Col. D.C. Sood. The facts giving arise to this appeal may briefly be narrated as under.

THE respondent/complainant - Col. D.C. Sood purchased a USHA (LEXUS) Storage Water Heater Model No. WH 1025 machine No. WF 190 8 PC 1341, for the sum of Rs. 3,461/- on 16.10.1999 from Canteen Stores Department of HQ Western Command, Chandimandir, Distt. Panchkula. THE bill for the said purchase was numbered MSIN 00003 dated 19.10.1999. When the complainant got the said water heater installed at his house through a plumber on 20.10.1999, a minor leakage was detected from the inlet valve. THE complainant Col. D.C. Sood personally went to the local service agent of the appellant - M/s. Usha International Limited at S.C.O. No. 25, Sector 26, Panchkula. THE complainant was not entertained there and he was directed to contact M/s. Veekay Traders, S.C.O. No. 2467, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh which was located approximately at a distance of 7 kilometres from S.C.O. No. 25, Sector 26, Chandigarh. THE complainant, however, pursued the matter and contacted M/s. Veekay Traders on telephone on 23.10.1999 and sought to lodge the complaint regarding the said Usha storage water heater being defective due to leakage in the inlet valve. THE grievance of the complainant is that M/s. Veekay Traders did not pay any heed to the complaint. On the other hand, M/s. Veekay Traders desired the defective water heater to be brought to their garage for its repairs. THE complainant attempted to convince M/s. Veekay Traders that the leakage was minor and it should be repaired at the residence of the complainant where it has been installed by the plumber who had already charged a sum of Rs. 100/- as installation fees. THE complainant also told M/s. Veekay Traders that it would cost much more in removing the water heater from the house and to bring the same to the garage aforesaid for its repairs. M/s. Veekay Traders, however, did not attend to the complaint of the respondent Col. D.C. Sood and showed indifference towards it. Faced with such a situation, Col. D.C. Sood filed the complaint on 31.10.1999 which was addressed to the Consumer Grievances Cell, Consumer Courts, Chandigarh. Copy of the complaint was endorsed to M/s. Usha Shriram (India), 185, XV-A, Noida, (UP) and Usha International Limited, S.C.O. No. 25, Sector 26, Chandigarh. After the complaint was filed before the District Forum-II, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The notices were not received back unserved. The District Forum-II raised a presumption in favour of due service of notices on the opposite parties and since the opposite parties were absent, the proceedings were held ex parte against them. The complainant filed his affidavit in the District Forum-II and made averments in the affidavit regarding his complaint. The relevant documents regarding the purchase of water heater such as cash receipt, guarantee card-cum-owners manual were also filed. The District Forum-II believed the evidence led by the complainant and held that a defective water heater was sold to the complainant and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 being the authorised agents of the manufacturer failed to rectify that defect. Resultantly, the complaint was allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- including compensation for harassment and costs of the case. A direction was also issued to the opposite parties to take back the defective water heater and refund the amount of Rs. 3,461/- paid by the complainant towards the price of the water heater along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 19.11.1999 till payment.

M/s. Usha International Limited, Lalli Niwas, G.T. Road, Jallandhar through its Joint Commercial Manager, Shri Kulbhushan Chhura filed appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) against order dated 6.7.2000 passed by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh and impleaded the complainant Col. D.C. Sood as respondent. Upon issuance of the notice of appeal, the respondent, Col. D.C. Sood put in appearance and contested the same. The record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh.

WE have heard Mrs. Sushma Chopra, Advocate learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent/complainant Col. D.C. Sood in person. WE have also perused the order under appeal and have carefully perused the record of the complaint case which was summoned from the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh. Mrs. Sushma Chopra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that instead of approaching the appellant for redressal of the grievance against the defective water heater, the complainant directly approached the District Forum-II for redressal of his grievance. The appellant, thus, had no occasion to look into the grievance of the complainant and to redress the same. It was also contended that the appellant came to know about the order under appeal when its copy was received on 11.7.2000. An application was moved for setting aside the ex parte order before the District Forum-II, but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 19.8.2000 on the ground that there was no provision under the C.P. Act for setting aside the ex parte order. A copy of the order was placed on record as Annexure A-1. It was also mentioned in the ground of appeal that the Company being a body corporate has to be sued through its Managing Director or Director at the registered office of the Company which has only Godown at the address mentioned by the complainant. It was also urged that the summons were issued for 5.1.2000 which happened to be the holiday and no fresh summons were issued for the next date and the case was proceeded ex parte. On merits of the case, it was contended that before marketing the product, its quality control is checked and as such there cannot be any occasion that any defective water heater could be marketed for sale. Since the appellant did not receive the summons of the complaint case from the District Forum-II, it was prevented from defending the complaint case. Shri Kulbhushan Chhura, Joint Commercial Manager, M/s. Usha International Ltd., Lalli Niwas, G.T. Road, Jalandhar filed affidavit in support of the grounds of appeal and the same is largely the copy of the grounds of appeal. The respondent/complainant Col. D.C. Sood has defended the order of the District Forum-II and contended that the appellant rendered deficient service and has also misled the complainant by incorporating the addresses and telephone numbers in the guarantee card-cum-owners manual for redressal of any complaint regarding the water heater purchased by him, which were not at all meant for the purpose for which it were included in the manual. Col. D.C. Sood has referred to the averments made in the complaint and contended that as a matter of fact, he had personally contacted at the addresses mentioned in the owners manual but instead of his complaint being attended to, he was diverted by the addressee i.e. M/s. Usha International Ltd., SCO No. 25, Sector 26, Chandigarh to the address of M/s. Veekay Traders aforesaid. He also pointed out that M/s. Veekay Traders instead of sending a technical hand to check and remove the defect in the water heater directed the complainant to bring the water heater to the garage of M/s. Veekay Traders and when he expressed his inability to do so and also that in case he removed the water heater from his residence and took the same to M/s. Veekay Traders it would involve more costs, M/s. Veekay Traders did not entertain the complaint of Col. D.C. Sood. In nutshell, the complainant has accused the appellant of not only deficient in service in marketing a defective piece and in not attending to the complaint regarding the piece being defective but of adopting unfair trade practice in not furnishing proper and correct points where a consumer could in the event of the grievance in respect of the water heater purchased could go and get the piece either replaced or repaired. Regarding the service of notice to the appellant, Col. D.C. Sood submitted that the copy of the complaint had already been sent by him to the Company at its office at Chandigarh and apart from it, notice had also been issued by the District Forum, which was not received back unserved. It is not the case of the appellant that the addresses of the opposite parties in the complaint case were not correct. It is also significant to note that the appellant was not impleaded at the address shown in the memo of appeal. The Chandigarh branch of the Company M/s. Usha International Ltd., SCO 25, Sector 26, Chandigarh had been impleaded as opposite party No. 1 while M/s. Veekay Traders, SCO No. 2467, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh was arrayed as opposite party No. 2. The address of opposite party No. 1 is to be found in the detailed list of Divisional Sales Officer/Principal dealers/Authorised Distributor/Senior Agent enclosed with guarantee card, a photocopy of the same placed on record of complaint case. The appellant has been shown at Serial No. 1 of the list pertaining to the State of Punjab. Notice was issued by the District Forum-II to the opposite parties i.e. Chandigarh branch. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that notice was not received by the appellant.

AFTER considering the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the District Forum-II was justified in raising an inference under law about the proper service of notice on the appellant and more particularly in view of fact that the copy of the complaint had already been sent to the appellant-Company by the complainant. On merit of the case, the District Forum-II has rightly believed the case of the complainant and has rightly relied on the evidence led by him. The complainant has, in our considered view, proved by the evidence on record that the appellant rendered deficient service by selling a defective water heater and when the defect was brought to the notice of the concerned representative of the Company, the defect was not removed to his satisfaction. Resultantly this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.