DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 5th day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 23/09/2022
CC/178/2022
Dr. C.A.Mathew
Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Main Road, Shoranur - 1
Palakkad – 679 121 - Complainant
(Party in person)
V/s
Aditya Yadav
Proprietor, Aditya Innovations
RTC-43, TTC Industrial Area
MIDC, Rabale, Behind Rabale Fire Bridge
Navi Mumbai – 400 701 - Opposite party
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Smt. Vidya.A, Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant who is a State gold medallist in Rifle Shooting was under preparation for participating in National Sports and Games competition which was held on 18/05/2022. He used FX Impact Mark II Air Rifle which was suitably modified and approved by the competent authorities.
The complainant purchased Air max compressor from the opposite party on 11/12/2021 for filling the required air in his rifle. He received it on 18/12/2021 and on inspection he found dents on its under surface and intimated this to the opposite party with photo; but they did not give any reply.
The complainant filled the air rifle for the first time as a test case in the month of February 2022. On 17/02/2022, when he tried to fill it for the second time, the compressor was not working properly and he intimated it to the opposite party on the same day. The opposite party asked the complainant to return it for service and he sent it on 25/02/2022. On enquiry, the opposite party told that the compressor is not working as the complainant had tampered with it.
The opposite party kept it for 2 months for repair stating that spare parts are not available. On 01/04/2022, the opposite party informed that they have done the necessary repairs and on payment of Rs.2,000/- it will be sent back and accordingly complainant paid the amount.
On receiving the compressor, the complainant noticed that it is not working properly and intimated this to the opposite party. They asked the complainant to sent it back for further repairs and informed the cost for repair to be around Rs. 8,000/-
The complainant purchased the product after seeing the publication about the warranty of the product in electronic medias.
He purchased it on payment of Rs. 27,500/-; but he received the bill only for Rs. 19,500/-. The opposite party had given a defective product and demanding more money towards repairs and service.
In the National Masters Sports and Games, he got only silver medal due to lack of air in his gun. Due to the irresponsible behaviour of the opposite party and delaying in setting things right, the complainant was unable to practice properly and perform to his fullest extent.
He sent Lawyer notice through his counsel on 05/05/2020 and he got reply on 13/06/2022 stating that the opposite party is ready to refund Rs. 27,500/- for the compressor only and not a paisa more.
So the complainant approached this Commission for directing the opposite party to pay a total amount Rs. 1,42,950/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost and such other reliefs which the Commission finds fit and proper to grant.
2. The opposite party filed version. The opposite party contended that FX Impact Air Rifle is a high powered air gun used for hunting and it is not allowed to be used in any kind of shooting competitions in India. Further the same air gun is not even allowed to own because it shoots pellets at higher power than defined by the Government.
Complainant received the compressor in perfect condition without any external or internal damage and he confirmed it on the same day. The complainant used it till 17th February 2022 and complained about the non-working. Opposite party tried to explain him about problem solving, but the complainant did not have any technical or even basic knowledge of handling the equipment. Hence the opposite party asked him to send it back without carrying out any repairs. The complainant tried repairing at his place and damaged it even further. Finally the complainant sent it on 22/02/2022 and the opposite party received it on 25/02/2022.
The opposite party did not offer any kind of warranty to the product and they charged nominal labour charges for repair. They did not charge him for the spares worth rupees 7 to 8 thousand and they replaced it. The compressor was perfectly working when they send it to him after repairs. The complainant was not able to use it correctly and tried to fill large capacity scuba tanks with it and hence failed once again. The compressor is meant to fill max 500cc cylinders and this information is provided to all the buyers.
The opposite party offered the complainant full refund of money if the complainant returns the product in intact condition. Their liability is limited to the cost of the product and they are ready to pay that much.
To the legal notice send by the complainant’s counsel on 05/05/2020, the opposite party send reply through his counsel on 13/06/2022 stating that they are ready and willing to refund Rs. 27,500/- for the compressor only and not a paisa more. They are reputed company supplying essential goods to competition shooters in India and they have always supported their customers.
There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint has to be dismissed.
3. From the pleadings of both parties the following points arise for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs if any, as cost and compensation.
4. After filing version, there was no representation from the part of the opposite party. So his name was called in open court and set ex-parte. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A6 marked. Heard.
5. Points 1 to 3 are considered together
Complaint averment is that the complainant purchased an Airmax compressor from the opposite party on payment of Rs. 27,500/- He received the product on 18/12/2021. On receiving it, he noticed a dent on its under surface and he intimated the opposite party about this.
In the month of February 2022, he used it a test case. When he filled the gun for the 2nd time on 17/02/2022, the compressor was not working. As per the opposite party’s direction, the complainant send it to them. After two months, they returned it after repair and charged Rs.2,000/- for that. But when he received the compressor after service, it was not in a working condition. When intimated about this, the opposite party asked to send it back for further repairs and informed that the approximate cost will be around Rs. 8,000/-
6. The complainant produced 6 Exhibits. Ext. A1 and A2 shows the receipts of payments dated 08/12/2021 for Rs. 5,000/- and for Rs.22,500/- So the complainant had made a payment of Rs. 27,500/- to the opposite party in total. Ext. A4 is print out of another receipt dated 02/04/2022 showing payment of Rs. 2,000/- to the opposite party. This according to the complainant is the payment towards repair of the Air compressor. So the complainant had made out a prima facie case that the Air compressor which he bought from the opposite party on 08/12/2021 became defective in its second use itself and the opposite party had repaired it.
7. Opposite party in their version contended that, the defect in the compressor was due to its improper use by the complainant. Further they claimed that the compressor was perfectly working when they sent it back after repairs. The complainant was not able to use it correctly and he tried to fill large capacity scuba tanks with it and hence failed.
8. But the opposite party did not take any steps to prove their contention of improper use by the complainant. There was no representation from their part after filing version. Further they stated that they are ready and willing to refund the full amount Rs. 27,500/- being the cost of the Air compressor to the complainant if he sends the product back.
9. As per the complainant, the Air compressor is not working even after service and he could not perform well in the competition due to lack of air in his gun. Due to the delay in service; he could not practice well and perform to the fullest extent.
10. So from the pleadings and evidence adduced it is clear that the Air compressor became defective within short span of time. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not properly servicing it and making in working condition even after receiving payment for the same. The opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for that. This had caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite party to
- Refund Rs. 27,500/- being the cost of the Air compressor together with 10% interest from 23/09/2022 (date of complaint) till realization.
- Refund Rs. 2,000/-, the cost of repair.
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- for their deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 5th day of May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Screenshot of payment slip of Rs. 5,000/- dated 08/12/2021.
Ext. A2: Screenshot of payment slip of Rs. 22,504.72/- dated 08/12/2021.
Ext. A3: Tax Invoice of The Professional Couriers dated 22/02/2022.
Ext. A4: Screenshot of payment of Rs. 2,000/- dated 02/04/2022.
Ext. A5: Lawyer notice dated 05/05/2022.
Ext. A6: Reply notice dated 13/06/2022.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil
Cost- Rs. 5,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
