/- IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of October, 2017
Filed on 07.06.2017
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.149/2017
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Shajahan Sri. Yesodharan
Poonkuvila Thekkethil Proprietor
Adikkattukulangara United Agencies
Palamel Village Para Junction, Nooranadu
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant is running a flourmill. The motor of the flour mill went defective, and on 25th April 2016, the opposite party took the motor away to his workshop. The opposite party assured the complainant that he would patch up the said gadget to perfection. Few days there after the opposite party brought the material machine to the complainants mill and installed the same thereof, However on the expiry of ten days the motor displayed the same defect, and went out of order. The opposite party had received Rs. 10,000/- as repairing charge. When the opposite party was called up over again the opposite party took the motor again to his workshop, and sought another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards repairing charge.. The opposite party had replaced pricey wires with low quality winding wires. The opposite party has not handed back the motor over to the complainant despite complainant’s repeated requests. The complainant had to down the shutter of his shop for a period of one month. The complainant’s payment of loan was defaulted. On got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite party appeared and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite party’ contention is that the opposite party had properly patched up the motor and handed the same over to the complainant. However as a result of either overload or operating the motor during lesser voltage time the motor must have gone defective. The opposite party has duly intimated the complainant that the motor could not be repaired without replacing the winding wire. The complainant is at liberty to take his motor from the opposite part’s workshop. The opposite party has only received legitimate remuneration from the complainant for the service he rendered. The opposite party is not responsible for the complainant’s failure to default loan repayment, the opposite party contends.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Ext.A1 was marked. The opposite party cross examined the complainant, and adduced no additional evidence.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party carried out repair work of complainant’s
motor?
(b) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
© Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We went through the complaint carefully. The complainant case is that the complainant’s motor used in his flour mill went defective. The opposite party promised the complainant that he would repair the motor to perfection. The opposite party patched up the motor, and received Rs. 10,000/- as repairing charge. However on a lapse of ten days the motor over again displayed the same defect, and the opposite party was intimated. The opposite party demanded Ten thousand more rupees as repairing charge. The opposite party would contend that he has refurbished the motor properly. The motor could have gone defective due to the mishandling of the same by the complainant. Nonetheless the opposite party during trail has expressed his assent to hand back the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/-. Thus going by the materials available before us in its entirety, particularly the opposite party’s willingness to give the complainant back a portion of the amount he received from him we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs. 7000/-.
In the result , complaint partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.7000/-. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30days of receipt of the same. No order as to cost and compensation. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Shajahan.M(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Retail Invoice. Dtd.28/5/2016
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
