<br /> By Sri. P. Raveendran, - Member<br /> <br /> Complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> Brief of the complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant availed a loan from Syndicate Bank, Manathavady under minor irrigation <br /> <br /> Scheme for purchasing a Motor and pump for irrigation of the coffee plantation, arechanuts and coconuts owned by him. The complainant purchased the Motor and pump and its accessories on 29.12.99 from 1st opposite party. The cost of the above ie. Rs.14,093/- was paid by the bank. On the same day the motor and pump set was installed in the property of the complainant by the technician deputed by 1st opposite party. There was some problems on pump and motor in its functioning. As per the oral complaint of the complainant , 1st opposite party had sent his<br /> technician to rectify the defects on 18.2.2000. It was continued for three times. There after 1st opposite party assured that the defective motor will be replaced with in a week and the defective motor was taken by him by installing another motor at the site. The installed motor was also defective one. The complainant sent a written representation on 22.2.2000 to the 1st opposite party. There was no response from the 1st opposite party. Subsequently on 7.2.2000 the complainant sent a lawyer noticed to the opposite parties. There after he filed a complaint before this Forum and the same is taken into file as OP No. 80/2000. After that the 1st opposite party replaced the stand by motor with the original motor. But the replaced motor was also defective. Opposite parties had not rectified the defects. The complaint was later withdrawn in order to incorporate the prayer for cause incurred.<br /> <br /> 2. As a result of the defective goods manufactured and supplied by opposite parties, the complainant could not irrigate coffee plants, arechanut and coconut. Thereby caused<br /> Rs.50,000/- of loss every year. Moreover he had to pay 13.26 % interest for the loan amount ie. for Rs.14,013/-. Meanwhile the opposite parties were prepared to rectify the defects in presence of the commissioner and there by the matter was settled. As per the terms of settlement, the opposite parties repaired the motor and pump in the presence of the commissioner. There after also the motor and pump were defective. Hence filed this complaint. In the complaint it is prayed either to replace the defective motor and pump or to refund its cost, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, to pay Rs.2,500/- as damages for the mental agony etc. and to pay the cost of this litigation.<br /> <br /> 3. Notice sent to opposite parties 1, 2, 4, were accepted . 2nd opposite party refused the notice sent by this Forum. First opposite party and 3rd opposite party filed version. 2nd opposite party and 4th opposite party has not filed version hence they are set exparte. First opposite party has admitted that the complaint has purchased a motor and pump set from him on 27.12.99 for Rs.14,093/-. He admitted that after two months of purchase the complainant came to his shop and complained that the motor is not working properly. Immediately he sent his technician to the site. He found that the motor could not be repaired from the site. On 18.2.'00 the Technician went to the site again and take the motor from there and replaced another 1 ½ HP brand new jet motor as stand by for the original motor and pump supplied by 1st opposite party. Meanwhile complainant filed OP 80/00. During the pendency of the above complainant 1st opposite party replaced the original motor and pump to the complainant and the above complaint was dismissed. Subsequently complainant filed another complaint raising the similar complainant and the same was numbered as OP 230/01 later an expert commissioner appointed by the Forum to inspect the motor and pump and reported that working with some minor defects. Accordingly, the matter was settled. On its basis the complainant had been taken off the file on 27.2.04, There after the above complaint is filed.<br /> <br /> 4. There is no defect for the motor and pump set supplied by the 1st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service by 1st opposite party. Moreover, the warranty had been in force and effect for one year from the date of purchase. First t opposite party has attended to what all complaints alleged by the complainant without delay. Since the warranty has been issued by manufacture they alone are liable and responsible for any defects in goods. The damage and compensation alleged are false and in correct. If at all any much damage is actually caused, the same is due to the careless and reckless handling of the machine by the complainant himself for which this opposite party is not liable. Electronic goods may often develop complaint due to warranty of reason beyond the control and expectation of the seller and manufacturer. The complainant has not caused any loss or damage as alleged., The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Therefore it is prayed to dismiss the complainant with costs of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. Third opposite party filed version. In the version he stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. Third opposite party admits that he is the manufacture of various electrical items. The complaint is in respect of a motor fitted with a pump manufactured by the second opposite party. If the complaint is regarding the defects of the piston pump this opposite party is not at all responsible. If it is the complaint of motor, the same relates to the year 2000. The complainant never made any complaint to the opposite party. The sale of the motor is outside warranty period. The dealer has also not reported any complaint. The claim for compensation is without any basis. Hence he prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of this 3rd opposite party.<br /> <br /> 6. The points to be considered are as follows:<br /> <br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.1: On the side of the complainant, the complainant is examined as PW1 Ext. A1 to A7 were marked. In the chief affidavit the complainant stated as written in the complaint. Ext. A1 is the attested copy of cash bill Dated 29.12.99 issued by 1st opposite party for Rs.14,093/-<br /> to the complainant which shows that the complainant was purchased a Suguna Piston Pump and the 1 ½ HP Crompton make Motor and its accessories. Ext. A2 series are the guarantee certificate of Suguna motors and pump sets, guarantee of satisfaction of Crompton Greaves motor and registration certificate of Piston Type Pump. Ext. A3 is the installation report Suguna motors and pumps. Ext. A4 is invoice issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A4 is the attested copy of cash bill for Rs.14,093/- issued by 1st opposite party on 29.12.00. Ext. A5 series are the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties on 22.2.2000 along with acknowledgment card (3 in number). Ext. A6 is the reply notice sent by on behalf of 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A7 series are the electric bills (12 nos) from January 2003 to Dec. 2007. The above bill shows that the consumer was not consumed any electricity from January 2003 to December.2007.<br /> <br /> 8. On the side of Opposite parties, 1st opposite party is examined as OPW1, Ext. B1 and B2 marked. Ext. B1 is the order in OP No.230/01. In the order it is noted that counsel appearing for both sides represented on 13.2.2004 that the defects of the motor were rectified in the presence of the commissioner. Therefore the case was posted to 25.2.2004 for commissioner's report. The complainant was absent on that day. The counsel of the complainant requested for 2 days. Hence adjourned to this day (27.2.04). The Commissioner not filed report. Complainant also absent. He has no case that the rectification work is not done. Hence the complaint is dismissed. Ext. B2 is the order in IA 126/04 dated, 21.5.2004 in OP 230/01. In the above order it is noted that complainant is present. But the rectifications work was carried over on the basis of above I.A. Hence the case was disposed off. So there is no provision to restore the case. On the new cause of action he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. OPW1 admitted that the complainant has purchased motor and pump and its accessories from him. He admitted that 4th opposite party is the dealer and 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of pump set and 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of motor. He admitted that he is not the dealer of the pump set and motor. He admits that from 2000 onwards there is cases regarding defects of motor and pump set. He admitted when ever the complainant complained he has sent his electrician to rectify the defect. He also admitted that the complainant purchased the Motor and pump set after availing a loan from the bank. The payment is made by the bank to him.<br /> <br /> 9. The Commissioners inspected the motor and pump set for 5 times. First inspection was conducted on 11.12.2000. the complaint of motor and pump set was found. Second inspection conducted on 8.8.03 on that date also the commissioner found some defect on motor and pump set. Third inspection was done on 9.2.04. In that date some rectification work done by the 1st opposite party in the presence of commissioner to the motor and pump set. During 2006 the commissioner again conducted inspection and found that the complainant cannot irrigate using the motor and pump set because it requires repair. For repair he has to spent Rs.6,000/- <br /> On 1.10.2007 the commissioner again inspected the motor and pump set and in his opinion this pump set and motor cannot be used for irrigation purpose at this stage.<br /> <br /> 10 On evaluating the evidence before us it is admitted that the applicant has purchased a motor and pump set and its accessories on 29.12.99 from 1st opposite party for irrigation after availing a loan from the Bank. It is admitted that the motor and pump have developed some problems from 18.2.2000 to till date. Ext. A7 series shows that the complainant could not use the motor and pump set from 2003 to December 2007. Five times commissioners inspected the Motor and pump set during this period. All these times the commissioner found some defects on motor as well as on pump set. The complainant forced to file three cases before this forum. Even though opposite party No.2 to 4 are the Manufactures and dealer of the motor and pump set 2nd opposite party and 4th opposite parties are not appeared before this Forum. Hence it is clear that the complainant could not serve his purpose for what he was purchased the motor and pump set. The 1st opposite party is not dealer of the motor and pump set. Even though he has tried his level best to solve the grievances of the complainant. Hence we found that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 2 to 4. As per the decision of Hon. National Commission reported in CPR 2008 (3) P.59 if there is any manufacturing defects in a vehicle or machinery or defect in production it is a settled law that produced manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally responsible. More over it is a fit case to apply the decision by Hon. National Commission Reported in CTJ 2008 page 589 in Nilambur Mishra and another V/s Orrissa Agro Industries Corporation and others. Hence point No.1 decided in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No.2: \It is true that the complainant was purchased the Motor and pump set and its accessories for Rs.14,093/- after availing a loan from Syndicate Bank Manathavady for irrigation of his Agriculture. The rate of interest is 13.26%. Even though he has purchased the motor and pump set he could not use it for the purpose which he intended. Hence he is entitled to get Rs.14,093/- with 13.26% interest from the date of filing the first complainant ie, in OP 80/2000. He is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as costs. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are bound to pay the above said compensation to the complainant. Since they are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to pay Rs.14,093/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand ninety three only) with 13.26% interest from the date of filing the first complaint ie. OP 80/2000 till the payment is made. They are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as cost to the complainant. The order is to be complied with in 30 days of this order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on the day of 31st July 2008.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: - I Sd/-<br /> /True copy/ MEMBER: - II Sd/-<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> A P P E N D I X:<br /> Witness examined for complainant:<br /> PW1 Gopalakrishnan Nair Complainant<br /> PW2 Benny Joseph Electrician<br /> Witness examined for opposite party<br /> OPW1 P.J. Abraham Business<br /> Exhibits marked for complainant's<br /> A1 Copy of Bill Dt. 29.12.99<br /> A2 Series Copy of guarantee Certificate<br /> A3 Instalation report<br /> A4 Copy of Invoice Dt. 29.12.99<br /> A5 Series Copy of letter Dt. 22.2.2000<br /> A6 Series Lawyer notice Dt. 7.3.2000<br /> A7 Series Electricity Bills (12 Nos.)<br /> Contd...9) <br /> C1 Commission report<br /> C2 Series. Copy of lawyer notice, copy of commissioner's report, <br /> Copy of site supervision report<br /> C3 Copy of site supervision report.<br /> C4 Inspection report<br /> C5 Commission report<br /> Exhibits marked for opposite party:<br /> B1 Copy of order in OP 230/01 Dt. 27.2.04<br /> B2 Copy of order in OP IA 126/04 in OP 230/01 Dt. 21.5.04 <br /> <br />