BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 28th day of March, 2006
CC No. 146/2005
M.H. Baig,
S/o. M. Anwar Baig,
Aged about 61 years,
Retired Forest Officers,
R/o. Door No. 41/463-C,
Kothapeta, Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. S. Nagendra Prasad,
Prop. Sri Sai Engineering Company,
Dealer of C.R.I. Akash Pump sets,
Shop No. 52/226, Municipal Buildings,
Near old Bus Stand, Kurnool.
2. The Managing Director,
Chola Pumps (Pvt.) Ltd.,
202, Satya Road, Saravanampatti,
Coimbatore- 641 035. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 21.3.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri G. Nagaraju, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant. Sri M. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and Sri S. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2, and stood over for consideration, till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As Per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 and 14 of C.P Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to replace the defect pump set with new pump set or to refund Rs. 8,107/- cost of the pump set with accessories, Rs. 6,000/- as compensation, Rs.2,000/- as costs and any other relief or reliefs with the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant being attracted with advertisement and assurance given by opposite parties with regard to 1.5 H.P C.R.I pump set and its better functioning, saving electricity and better bailing of water from the bore well, purchased 1.5 H.P C.R.I pump set bearing No. A9/ AJ9 and Serial No. D4 19623 with its accessories on 21.1.2004 for Rs.8,100/- from opposite party No.1 in exchange of old Texmo Pump set and opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of said pump set. The said pump set was having one-year warranty from the date of purchase.
3. After installing the said pump set in the complainant’s house, for one month the pump set worked properly and thereafter started giving troubles, like no properly bailing of water, heavy sound and electricity consumption was raised from month to month to an extend of Rs.862/- in July 2005, prior to 21.1.2004 the electricity consumption was ranging from Rs.149 to Rs.250. Thereafter, the complainant complained about the said troubles to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 sent his qualified mechanic twice and thrice to adjust the troubles in the said pump set, but even after said adjustment the pump set remained as usual as mal-functioning. Thereafter, on 7.5.2005 the opposite party No.1 replaced the said pump set with a re-conditioned old pump set bearing No. 395234 of Centri fugal Jet pump type of jet twin A9/ AJ9. The replaced pump set was also troublessome to the complainant and again approached the opposite party No.1 to replace the defect pump set with new pump set, but the opposite parties did not replace the said pump set, being vexed with requests and demands, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 30.11.2004 and 17.3.2004 and there was not response to the said notices. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal.
4. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.24, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its complaint averments. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party No.1.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing separate written version.
6. The written version opposite party No.1 admits the complainant purchased a 1.5 H.P. C.R.I. pump set with accessories for a sum of RS. 8,100/- and admits the said pump set was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase but alleges that the pump set purchased by the complainant has no manufacturing defects. On the request of the complainant the opposite party No.1 deputed his mechanic to attend the troubles of the complainant and a brand new pump set bearing No. 395234 was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. The only allegation of the complainant is that no proper bailing of water and heavy electricity and heavy noise. The said problems aroused because the complainant failed to give depth to the bore and during the period of services it was observed that the bore is old one and it is slowly reducing the production of water and refiling with mud and other waste material as the complainant failed to refresh the bore well at regular inter-wells hence, less bailing of the water and not due to manufacturing defect of the Jet pump set and regarding the consumption of the electricity it depends on the other electricity consumable articles, so far the production of heavy noise is concerned the pump set was fixed to the wall due to lack of sufficient place and due to the natural vibration to the wall, the pump set was making heavy noise. Hence, there are no bonafides in the present complaint and seeks for dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. The written version of opposite party No.2 admits the complainant purchased 1.5 H.P pump set from the opposite party No.1 in exchange with old Texmo Jet pump and the said pump set was having one year warranty from the date of purchase. It further submits that whenever the complainant lodged a complaint in respect of pump set the service personal of opposite parties immediately received it and examined on the spot and promptly attended with. The allegations of the complainant i.e hike consumption of electricity are not due to technical defects of the said pump set but it may be due to extraneous factors. The said pump set was fixed in an inclined position directly to the wall as there was no proper base to mount the pump set this is the actual reason for emitting heavy sound in the pump set. As per the manual supplied the delivery head will be fixed less than 50 feet and to what range the complainant has fixed the delivery head, the complaint is silent. As it was observed by the opposite party about the existing bore well is almost 10 years old and the complainant did not properly maintained it and small roots and mud obstructing the delivery point when it is continuous running of motor due these the discharge of water is gradually getting down.
8. The opposite parties in order to maintain good customer relations replaced the old pump set on May, 2005 to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter, there was no complaint from the complainant side and for the first time in this complaint the complainant alleged improper working of said replaced pump set also. There is no deficiency of service as contended in the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint against opposite party No.2 with costs.
9. The opposite party No.2 caused interrogatories to the complainant and opposite party No.1 suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant and did not filed any documents.
10. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
11. It is not in dispute that the original 1.5 H.P C.R. I pump set was purchased by the complainant on 21.4.2004 vide Ex A.1 from opposite party No.1 was defective and it was for that reason that opposite parties had to replace the same with a re-conditioned old pump set and the original pump set was having one year warrant vide Ex A.3. The replaced pump set was also according to the complainant defective like, no proper bailing of water, heaving sound and heavy electricity consumption. But as against to it the opposite parties alleges that said allegations of complainants are not due to defects in the pump set and if any cropped up due to misuse of pump set by the complainant only as the 10 years old bore well of the complainant was not properly maintained and as mud and roots are engrossed in to it which disrupted proper bailing of water. The opposite parties in support of supra stated contentions did not place any such cogent substance to substantiate them and the opposite parties strongly argued that there is no sufficient proof exists about the defects in the second pump set which was admittedly replaced by opposite parties. A look at the complaint tells the agony through which the complainant went after receiving the second pump set on 7.5.2005, there is absolutely no material placed by the opposite parties in support of their case and the opposite parties 1 and 2 neither filed their sworn affidavit as evidence to rebutt the contentions of the complaint averments or sworn affidavit averments of the complainant nor filed any documents in substantiating their allegations.
12. There is absolutely no reason to deny the averments of the complainant that the second Jet pump also met with same fate as the first one. The sworn affidavit averments and the complaint averments on this issue which have been sworn as true by him indicate that he could net use the replaced second machine for which purpose he has obtained it. Hence what appears is that the requests of complainant for repairing the pump set as to the defects developed during warranty period and the same could not be rectified.
13. If a consumer makes complaint’s several times about the defective goods supplied to him and the defects are not removed and the money has not been refunded defective goods cannot be allowed to become a source of constant in convenience, harassment and mental agony to the consumer, such an approach would defeat the object of Consumer. Hence, when ever the consumer alleges of defects in the goods, purchased, they should be immediately attended to the defects and if the defects are not removed the goods should be replaced immediately which would remove much mental agony and tension to the consumer.
14. The Ex A.4 and A.23 are the legal notices dt 30.11.2004 and dt 17.3.2005 of the complainant addressed to opposite party No.1, the same grievances such as the pump set purchased by the complainant was having several defeats such as causing heavy sound and poor bailing of water and inspite of repeated requests, the defects in said pump set were not removed and not caring to the complainant’s requests and there by alleges deficiency of service on opposite parties and claiming replacement of old defective pump set with new pump set within 10 days along with Rs.500/- as cost of notice.
15. The Ex A.24 is the postal acknowledgement of opposite parties as to the receipt of Ex A.23 and Ex A.5 is speed post receipt. The Ex A.6 to A.22 are the demand bills issued by electricity department to the complainant’s service connection. All the above material indicates in uni-tone that the original pump set was defective one and the replaced pump set of the complainant also developed defects. Hence, there appears every defects in the pump set purchased by the complainant.
16. The opposite parties except alleging defaultive and non co-operative conduct of complainant but did not substantiate their bonafides and malafidies of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting corroborative material.
17. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above there is nothing on record to disprove the allegations made by the complainant regarding the defects he alleged in the replaced pump set. Hence, the complainant is certainly entitled to the reliefs sought. The Ex A.1 is the purchase bill dt 21.1.2004 for Rs.6,500/-as to the cost of pump set purchased by the complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to the cost of pump set of Rs.6,500/- or defect free pump set from opposite parties.
18. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the defective pump set with new pump set of same model on return of the defective pump set by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 or pay cost of the pump set i.e. Rs.6,500/- to the complainant and a compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental along suffered along with costs of Rs.500/- within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 28th day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses of Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Purchase cash bill, Dt.21-1-2004 for Rs.6,680/-
Ex.A2 Accessories (2 numbers)
Ex.A3 Warranty cum operators manual book
Ex.A4 Legal notice, dated 30-11-2004 to opposite party No.1
Ex.A5 Postal (speed post) receipt
Ex.A6 Electricity bill for Rs.149/-
Ex.A7 Demand bill for Rs.304/- along with payment receipt
Ex.A8 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.273/- along with payment receipt
Ex.A9 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.233/- along with payment receipt
Ex.A10 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.195/- along with payment receipt
Ex.A11 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.173/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A12 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.307/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A13 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.217/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A14 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.257/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A15 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.264/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A16 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.306/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A17 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.268/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A18 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.310/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A19 Demand (Electricity) bill for Rs.487/- along with payment receipt
(e sava)
Ex.A20 Demand bill for Rs.465/- along with payment receipt
Ex.A21 Demand bill for Rs.862/- along with payment receipt
Ex.A22 Demand bill for Rs.513/-
Ex.A23 Office copy of the legal notice, dated 17-3-2005
Ex.A24 Postal Acknowledgement
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. G.Nagaraju, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. M.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
3. Sri. S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
