7.10.08<br /> K.P.Preethakumari, Member<br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the pump set with a new one and for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, Rs.9750/- incurred by the complainant as repair charge and cost.<br /> The complainant’s averments are as follows:<br /> The complainant is the President of a consumers committee constituted by the representatives of 32 houses in Kuzhikkal Edam in Kunnummal Panchayath, Kozhikode Dist. This committee had decided for a drinking water supply scheme by installing a unit having a well, Tank, motor and other accessories with the help of World Bank. The complainant had contacted the opposite party No.1 for a quotation for accessories which were required for the project. The 1st opposite party had supplied quotation and assured the complainant that they will supply goods having ISI standard and service will be provided by their workers. The quotation was given for supplying 2HP pump set of Kirloskar, a starter of Crompton Greaves and a panel board. The complainant had accepted the quotation and had purchased articles for an amount of Rs.43,732/- as per the quotation on 9.6.2001 and 21.7.01 as per the bill bearing No.954 and 1472. After installation, the project was commissioned on 2002 January. But soon after within 2months the motor was not in a position to supply enough water for the purpose. But the opposite party assured that it will became working condition while in continuous use. But in the month of April the working of motor was completely stopped. But the opposite parties were not ready to cure the defects, even after repeated request and hence he had issued registered lawyer notice. After receiving the notice opposite party had instructed the compliant to bring the motor before opposite parties institution and repaired the motor and given back to the complainant with a stipulation that the expense will be given by him immediately to the complainant. But the opposite parties were not ready to comply the words. Thereafter the motor became defective several times and this was due to the manufacturing defects of the motor and hence the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace it with a new one. But the opposite parties were not willing to do so. In the meantime an expert from Puna came and examines the motor and he opined that the motor and the panel board were duplicate one. Again the pump set became defective and the complainant demanded the opposite party to replace the same. But instead of replacing it the opposite party instructed the complainant to bring the motor before Poduval sons, Kozhikode and he brought the same, but from there it was brought to Coimbatore as per the instruction from the workers of Poduval Sons and the opposite parties assured that the motor will be replaced within a week. But all are in vein. The experts from Coimbatore also opined that the motor is not a new one it seems to be so because it was transferred to a new case. From Coimbatore they demanded Rs.2500/- as advance for repair charge. So this amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Because of the acts of opposite parties the members of this Consumer committee was not getting water for a long period. For repairing the motor the complainant had spend huge amount. But the opposite parties were not ready either to replace the defective motor or to pay the expense incurred by the complainant. Hence this complaint. Later on the complaint was amended and 2nd opposite party who was the manufacturer of the pump set was arrayed as a party.<br /> On receiving the complaint, the Forum had issued notices to the opposite parties, 1st opposite party appeared and filed version. 2nd opposite party was absent and set exparte.<br /> The 1st opposite party filed version admitting that the opposite party has supplied the materials required for water supply as per the quotation accepted by the complainant./ Further admits that they had supplied starter of crompton Greaves, but later on replaced it with Himlit company’s starter as per the request of the complainant. Soon after information received from the complainant the opposite party along with his company agent visited the site and inspected the machinery. On in section it was found that the malfunctioning was due to the voltage fluctuations and the same was convinced to the complainant and has given further inspection to take proper steps to provide adequate stabilized voltage and not to operate in low voltage. Whenever the complainant raised the complaint regarding the machineries, the opposite party had inspected the machinery then and there. They denied the allegation that an expert from Pune checked and opinioned that the panel board is a duplicate one. More over the opposite party was only a trader and the motor was manufactured by Kirloskar Company and supplied by Poduval agencies, Calicut. They were liable if there was any manufacturing defect. The opposite parties further denied that the complainant had contacted an expert repairing unit at Coimbatore wherein one of the worker of the said unit alleged that the motor in question is an old one and the same has been placed in a new phase after affecting requisite repairs and further that the motor could be functioned only after effecting necessary repairs by incurring huge expenses. There is no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the quotation, the complainant has to pay entire amount at the time of supply and installation of machinery. But the complainant had paid 75% by saying that the balance of 25% will be paid to the opposite party only when water could be supplied effectively to the beneficiaries. The opposite party is not liable for the negligence and carelessness of the complainant in handling the machinery and opposite party as always extended its arms in clearing all complaints provided if the complaint is major, it will be reported to the authorized distributor and the manufacturer. More over opposite party had purchased new pump set from the distributor. More than 32 committee irrigation scheme in the same panchayath and neighboring panchyath of the complainant was carried out by this opposite party and there was no complaints regarding the same. Moreover the claim is a time barred one and hence it is liable to be dismissed.<br /> Based on the above pleading the following issues were raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?<br /> 3. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence in the above case consists of oral testimony of PW1, Exct.A1 to A10, C1 and B1.<br /> Issue Nos.1 to 3<br /> Admission of 1st opposite party along with the deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 proves that the complainant had purchased 2 HP motor, along with other accessories from 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.43732/-. The payment was completed on 17.12.01 as per Ext.A6 receipt. The complainant in his complaint and oral testimony deposed that the ‘Suddha Jala Vidarana Padhathi’ was commissioned in the year 2002 January and the motor became defective in the month of April 2002 itself. No contrary evidence is produced by the opposite party to prove these contentions. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant while going through his evidence since he is a representative of committee and the motor had been issued for communal purpose. The 2nd opposite party is a well settled and well known manufacturer of the pump set. If they have any controversy of the pleadings of the complainant nothing will prevent them from coming before the Forum and establish their pleadings. This itself shows that there is some merit in the case of the complainant. Ext.C1 report also pointed out that the motor has manufacturing defect. More over during warranty period itself, the opposite parties were not ready to inspect the site and repair the motor. They had repaired it only after brought the motor before their premises for which this complainant spent money. More over the opposite parties were liable to cure the defect completely, but even though they have repaired the motor, it became defective again and again. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for compensation for the same. So the 2nd opposite party is liable to replace the defective motor with a new one and 1st opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2000/- as the expenses incurred by the complainant to repair the pump set during warranty period and cost of Rs.250/- each from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing<br /> 1. 2nd opposite party to replace the pump set and to pay Rs.250/- (rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as cost of these proceedings;<br /> 2. 1st opposite party to pay Rs.2, 000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation together with Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as cost of these proceedings<br /> to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- <br /> President Member Member<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Quotation dt.24.5.01 issued by OP1.<br /> A2 and A3.Credit bill dt.9.6.01 and 21.7.08 issued by OP1<br /> A4 to A6.Receipts dt.19.7.01.6.801 and17.12.01 issued by OP1<br /> A7.Delivery note dt.24.2.03 issued by Poduval sons<br /> A8.Receipt dt.26.2.03 issued by Poduval sons, Calicut<br /> A9.Certificate dt.5.1.04 issued by AE.KSEB<br /> A10.Copy of the lawyer notices dt.7.12.02 and4.12.02 sent to Ops<br /> Exhibits for the opposite parties<br /> B1.Copy of the invoice dt.31.5.01 issued by Poduval sons to OP1<br /> Exhibits for the court<br /> C1.Commission report<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite parties<br /> Nil<br /> <br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Despatched on<br /> By hand/Post<br />