CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Palakkad, Kerala

Dated this the 28^th day of May 2014

PRESENT   : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT                       Date of filing:  19/10/2013

                  : SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER

        : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

CC/176/2013

Dr. A.O. George,

S/o. Joseph, Kallanickal house,

Karimba P.O,

Palakkad.                                                                         : Complainant

Vs

 Adil Saleem, Techno Parts,

Shop No. 12/39,

 Kudu Tower, Main Road,

Pallipadi, Mannarkkad.                                                         : Opposite party

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H. President.

Complaint in brief- Complainant purchased a Weed Cutter machine from  opposite party on 14/03/2013 on payment of Rs. 23,100/-( Rupees Twenty Three Thousand  and One Hundred only).   The machine has a warranty of six months.  From the date of purchase itself the machine has starting  trouble and hence it was handed over to opposite party for servicing.  Even after servicing   the machine did not work well.  Even after full check up  and replacement of  air filter, Petrol hose, Air Pump, Plug etc., the defects remained the same.  On 25/09/2013 the machine  was sent to the Head office.  It was informed that there is defect in the crank and since the warranty period has expired, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) has to paid by the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant  that  through out the warranty period, the machine  was defective and  was under servicing.  Hence complainant prays for  an order directing opposite party to pay the price of the  machine along worth Rs. 25,000/-( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) compensation and Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

          Opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Opposite party admits the purchase of the machine. It is stated that all the directions for usage of the machine was given at the time of purchase itself.  Even  then complainant, did not function the machine as per  as the direction and came to the shop alleging defects.  Opposite party always demonstrates the machine from the shop and also intimate  the complainant regarding the filter cleaning, proportion  of petrol to be used etc.   All the   defects alleged was the result of not following the usage directions.  Crank defect was also the  result of the same.  Further states that complainant is bad for  non joinder of necessary parties.  Manufacturer is an essential  party to the complaint.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their  respective chief affidavits Ext. B1  marked.

After filing of the chief affidavit opposite party submitted that he is ready to repair the machine and complainant sought time for verifying the satisfactory functioning  of the machine. On next hearing date opposite party  submitted that machine  was repaired and working satisfactorily, but the complainant denied the same.  Thereafter the complainant was directed to produce the machine before the forum, but  complainant remained absent through out the further proceedings.

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether the  weed – cutter supplied to the complainant is a defective one?
2. If so,  what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?

Issues 1 & 2

Purchase of machine from opposite party is an admitted fact.  Even though opposite party has contented nonjoinder of necessary parties , complainant has not taken any steps to implead   the necessary parties.  More over the alleged defects like starting problem, replacement of air filter , Petrol hose, air pump, plug etc. is not supported by any documentary evidence. According to opposite party all the problems are due to the malfunctioning of the machine .  After replacement as directed by the forum for settlement, complainant  never approached  before the forum.  Machine was

also not produced as per the direction.  Complainant has not taken any steps to obtain expert opinion regarding the alleged defect.  So there is absolutely no evidence on  record to show  that the machine supplied to the complainant is  a defective one.  Moreover complaint is bad for non – joinder of necessary  parties.

In view  of the above discussion we are of the view that complainant  miserably failed to prove a case in his favour.    In the result complaint dismissed.

  Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th day of May 2014.

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                Smt. Seena. H

                         President

                                                                                     Sd/-

                     Smt. Shiny. P.R

                           Member

                                                                                      Sd/-

                       Smt. Suma. K.P

                           Member

                                  APPENDIX

 Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext. B1 - Photo copy of warranty card issued by opposite party to the complainant

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

 Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil 

Cost allowed

Nil