BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29th September 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HONBLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 41/2014
(Admitted on 29.01.2014)
Purushothama Achar,
S/o. Subraya Achar,
Aged about 75 years,
R/at. Swarga House,
Padre Post, Panaje,
Kasaragod.
…….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri SD)
VERSUS
- Managing Director
Singer India Ltd,
A.26/A, 2nd Floor,
Mohan Co operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi 44.
- Proprietor,
Deva raders,
Pais Building,
Yeimudi, Puttur 01.
(Advocate for Opposite Parties: Sri HKB)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency of service as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
2. The complainant prays for the order for reliefs directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.7,800/ with 12% interest from 17/02/2012 till payment, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as compensation, and Rs.10,000 as expenses incurred by the complainant.
II. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The top Number Complaint lodged by the complainant against the above of the opposite party Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for the relief as sought for, on the strength that the complainant has purchased a Singer Merritt 103 MA Sewing Machine with Sl.No.MDI 001 as per receipt No. 1280 dated 17.02.2012 for Rs.7,800/ from the 2nd opposite party and the 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer. The above sewing machine has one year warranty from the date of purchase. The complainant has purchased the Sewing Machine for his personal use. Thereafter, while using the same Sewing machine within 6 months of purchase the above said machine was not working properly i.e. the machine was not stitching and was having loud sound while stitching. Hence the above sewing machine was taken to the 2nd opposite party for repair and the 2nd opposite party has done some repair work and gave it back to the complainant. But the above problem still persisted. It is submitted that the 2nd opposite party has failed to rectify the abovedefects in the sewing machine till now. Hence the complainant issued regd. Lawyer’s notice dated 14.02.2013 to the opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has issued reply on 26.02.2013 by admitting the problem. Further, it is stated that the above sewing machine has manufacturing defect.
Apart from that, the opposite parties are duty bound to pay the claim amount of the complainant. Hence, they are not doing so in order to make unlawful gain and cause loss to the complainant. Due to the wanton and negligent act of the opposite party hence, the matter raised for claiming an adequate compensation and other appropriate reliefs. On the strength of the same there is also a ground of prolonging the service by the concerned opposite parties. This also covered with deficiency of service in all the angle. That apart continues with unfair trade practice in the business transactions. Hence this complaint.
- Further, on observation by us of the order sheet maintained in the case by this Forum, the necessary notice sent to the opposite party by RPAD with copies of the complainant. The opposite party No.2 appeared through their counsel filed separate version. The opposite party No.2 stated that the complainant has purchased a Singer Merritt 103 MA Sewing Machine with Sl.No.MDI 001 as per receipt No.1280 dated 17.02.2012 for Rs. 7,800/ from the 2nd Opposite Party and the 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer and the above sewing machine has one year warranty from the date of purchase. However the Opposite Party No.2 has not knowledge about the averment that the complainant has purchased the sewing machine for his personal use. Further the above sewing machine was taken to the shop of the 2nd Opposite Party for repair and the 2nd Opposite Party has done some repair work and gave it back to the complainant is not correct. It is submitted that after some times of the purchase the machine, it was taken to the shop of the 2nd Opposite Party, and when Opposite Party No.2 has checked and found that complainant has not fixed needle properly. Hence due to mistake of the complainant himself a small problem occurred. The Opposite Party No.2 has rectified this mistake and taught to the complainant how to fix needle properly. Hence the complainant took back his machine to home. Hence that time there was no problem in the machine. Thereafter in the para 3 the above problem repeated often repeated and the complainant has reported the problem every time to the Opposite Party and the problem still persisted is denied as false. And it is also denied as false that 2nd Opposite Party has failed to rectify the above defects in the sewing machine till now. The real fact is that as already mentioned when first time complainant brought the machine to the shop Opposite Party No.2 has rectified the mistake of the complainant in the fixing the needle. And after this incident up to now never came to the shop of the Opposite Party No.2 and also never reported any problem regarding that machine. Instead of it he has sent legal notice dated 14.02.2013. The Opposite Party No.2 has issued reply on 26.02.2013 by admitting the problem is not correct because the Opposite Party No.2 has never admitted the problem in his reply dated 26.02.2013. Thereafter, in the para 4 the above sewing machine has manufacturing defect and due to that the sewing machine does not stitch and has loud sound is denied as false. Firstly the complainant has not reported any of these problem to the Opposite Party No.2. And it is submitted that as per the complainant if it is manufacturing defect, then the manufacturer is responsible. The Opposite Party No.2 is not manufacturer. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. And sought for dismissed of the complaint. And posted the case for complainant evidence. Then that on 03.06.2014 complainant got examined by way of affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex C1 to C5. And prays for its allow. Arguments of the complainant also heard. Then that on 24.02.2015 on behalf on the Opposite Parties Mr. Ravindran T.N (RW1) got examined by way of affidavit evidence and got marked the document Ex R1. Apart from that we also consider of the available pleadings on either the side together with the receipt evidence both of the sides along with the available documents with thorough observation. We come to a proper analysis and later raised the following points as follows:
- Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant entitled for the relief as Sought by her from the opposite party?
- If so, what order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i): As per Affirmative
Point No. (ii): As per Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINT Nos. (i) & (ii): In the above matter raised by complainant seeking the relief of refund of Rs. 7,800/ with interest at 12% from 17.02.2012 with compensation of Rs. 20,000/ plus Rs. 10,000/ towards compensation. In turn on due notice of this Forum the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed detailed version by opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No.1 urges on different grounds with prays for dismissal of the complaint. The grounds made out by the complainant in the case is that he was purchased one singer merit 103 MA sewing machine with serial No. MDI 001 as per receipt No. 1280 dated 17.02.2012 for Rs. 7,800/ from opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 is the manufactures. The same has one year warrantee from the said date. The same was purchased his personal use. Due course it was not fit for work, for stitching and also it was loud sound while in its use on notice it was repaired with opposite party No.2 and seat back. Likewise the same problem was repeated. Till the time, it was not rectified. Then legal notice made on 14.02.2013 and inturn the opposite party No.2 issued reply to the said notice on 26.02.2013 by adverting all the problems arise, with the same. Hence, it was due to manufacturing defect. So, the said sale is amounts to deficiency of service. Contrary to the same in the version of opposite party No.2 denied by taking only the in consistent ground, where in suppressing the reply notice given as 26.02.2013, as available in the file as per Ex C5. Further, as found in the same it was also brought to the notice of opposite party No.1. So that, since the whole thing has found in the way of making an admission by them, to the case of the complainant, nothing is required to conclude the matter that this is a deficiency of service, on the strength of the said machine was in manufacturing defect. So on any angle it is in the hands of taking case and also look out of both opposite party, prior to deliver the same to the complainant by receiving the said sale consideration of Rs. 7,800/ as on 17.02.2012 as per Ex C1 receipt. So, on all the ground including Ex C2 warranty card, there is nothing to be hide except to conclude that the said transaction of opposite party No.1 and 2 with the complainant is a clear violation of trade practice. Coupling with all the above facts including oral and documentary evidence available in the case is seems that both the opposite parties are held responsible and liable for causing suffering and mental agony to the complainant. In such a view, the same has to be compensated in fall by way of taking back the said defective sewing machine from the complainant and inturn the opposite parties to refund the said entire 7,800/ received as per Ex C1 that on 17.02.2012. That apart, once when the same was kept with them, for the said defective product, they also liable to pay the same interest at 10% from that date i.e. 17.02.2012, till realization. And since the matter pertains to this consumer protection, arised and when it show, the clear violation in protecting the purpose by the opposite parties, they also liable to pay compensation to the complainant same of Rs. 5,000/. And another sum of Rs. 3,000/ towards cost and litigation expenses, as the complainant is entitled for the same. Further it is also directed by us to the complainant, on comply of the same by opposite parties jointly or severally, the said defective sewing machine has to be handed over to them with necessary acknowledgement for receipt of the same by the opposite party. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the point No.1 and 2 over him by treated in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally held liable to refund the entire amount of Rs.7,800/ (Rupees Seven thousand Eight hundred only) towards the value of the singer Merritt 103 MA Sewing machine, as per receipt dated 17.02.2012 vide No.1280, along with the accrued interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of purchasing sewing machine i.e on 17.02.2012 till realization. Further opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost and litigation expenses incurred by the complainant. Further after comply of this order the opposite party with liberty to take back the machine from the complainant. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the day of receipt of copy of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(1 to 9 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of September 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI) (SMT. C. V. SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW 1: Mr. Purushothama Achar.
Documents Marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: Dated: 17.02.2012 Original Tax Invoice.
Ex C2: Dated: 17.02.2012 Original Warranty Card.
Ex C3: Dated: 14.02.2013 Office copy of the regd Lawyers Notice.
Ex C4: Dated: 18.02.2013 Postal Acknowledgement of 1st Opposite Party
Ex C5: Dated: 26.02.2013 Reply of the 2nd Opposite Party.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Ravindran T.V, Partner in Deva Traders.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
R1 Dated: 07.03.2014 Resolution.
Dated: 29.09.2016. PRESIDENT
