IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member,
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 104/2019 (filed on 01-07-2019)
Petitioner : A.K.Xavior,
S/o Rajappan,
Aruparayil,
Pulikkuttussery P.O.,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K.Ubaideth)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Beckon, Mattakandathil Building,
Manarcadu P.O., Kottayam.
(Adv. Georgie Simon &
Basil Chandy Vavachan)
2) Bharath Electronics, First Floor,
Resmi Complex, Vadayampady P.O.,
Puthencruz, Ernakulam.
(Adv. George Amballur & Shibu Joseph)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint is filed under Section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complainant purchased a fully automatic non-water immersed micro controller based water level controller from opposite parties for controlling the portion of the water tank at the house of the complainant. On 15/11/18 he paid Rs,5,500/- for purchasing said equipment. The complainant had purchased the same believing the advertisement given by the opposite party. The opposite parties assured the complainant that after connecting the said equipment the water flow to the tank would be disconnected when the tank is filled. But on 17/11/18 the motor worked of its own when water level was low in the tank and the water flow should have been disconnected upon the filling of the tank. But the motor pump was not disconnected and water flowed to second floor and thereafter to the ground floor also. All the house hold articles which were kept in the up stair were ruined by this water flow thereby causing Rs.95,312/-. The repair charge of Rs.57,187/- of the destroyed paint costs Rs.5,000/-, for demolishing the ruined articles is Rs.28,593/- . Thus the complainant had a total loss of Rs.1,86,092/-. The mishap was intimated to opposite party and they visited the spot and understood the situation. They assured to compensate the loss. But opposite parties did not turn up to compensate the loss of the complainant as promised. The deficiency of the service from the part of the opposite party has caused several hardships to the complainant. One Bijumon V.K., a registered building designer is entrusted by the complainant to prepare an estimate of the loss caused to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice on 17/02/19 showing these facts but the opposite party only sent a reply notice to the complainant instead of taking steps for redressing the grievances of the complainant.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed version.
The first opposite party in its version contented that they admit the purchase of the water lever control equipment by the complainant and the first opposite party installed the same at the residence of the complainant. The first opposite party has done only the installation of the product in complainant’s house in accordance with the electrical and plumbing work and fixation of the water tank by a 3rd party at the risk of the complainant. The second opposite party who is the manufacturer of the product has been providing a warranty of one year for the said product and the opposite party acknowledged this to the complainant. This was a replacement guaranty within one year. On 18/11/18 the said product at the complainant’s house shown some complaints and on the next day itself the complainant intimated the opposite party one and on 20/11/18 itself first opposite party with the guidance of the second opposite party visited the complainant’s house and replaced the defective product with a new one without any deficiency in service. The said product is an electrical product and it can be succumbed to short circuit or any other issue arising in the electrical work of the complainant’s house. An electrical product if found defective can only be replaced with a new one or can be rectified if it is a natural wear and tear of the product. The first opposite party is only the dealer of the said product and the second opposite party is the manufacturer. It is pertinent to not that the plumbing and electrical work of the complainant’s house and fixation of water tank was done by a third party. If water from the tank over flowed it should have gone to the drainage or outside the house. But allegedly water flowed inside the house. It is due to improper fixation of water tank and imperfect plumbing of complainant’s house. So the first opposite party has rejected the complainant’s claim of Rs.2,36,092/- and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In their version the 2nd opposite party contented that the 1st opposite party is not the authorised dealer or distributor of the 2nd opposite party but at times they purchase products from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is not sure as to whether the complainant has purchased the machine of Rs.5,500/- on 15/11/18. It was not installed by the technicians of the second opposite party. Installation of the machinery is very important for its proper functioning. The installation cost is clearly described in the catalogue. The second opposite party has sold the machine to the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.3300/- plus 18% GST thus the total of Rs.3,894/- per pc. The second opposite party has never met the petitioner either at the time of purchase or before. The second opposite party always insist that the said machine should be installed by their own qualified and trained technician even though the steps of installation have been described in the catalogue attached to the machine. The second opposite party has no knowledge about the alleged water flow on 17/11/18. On 22/11/18 as per the request of the first opposite party the second opposite party accompanied them to the house of the complainant at Aymanam. On examination, the 2nd opposite party found that there was no fault with the machine installed there and which was demonstrated to the parties also. They found the machine in good working condition and that at that time no damages as alleged were shown to the opposite parties. The machine was supposed to be connected to the water pump for its smooth functioning. But at the site a heavy U.V. Water Sterilizing System (U.V. Plazma) was connected to the said machine parallel to the motor pump in such a manner that whenever the motor is turned on, the water level controller as well as U.V. Water Sterilizing System (U.V. Plazma) will start functioning. The second opposite party had pointed out the said mistake in installation and had advised them to connect only a 1 H.P motor along with this machine so as to ensure best results. Inspite of the wrong installation the machine was working in good condition that the complainant has connected to it. At that time the complainant had not made any complaint of damages as alleged in the complaint. The report filed by the so called building designer is false and frivolous. The second opposite party is not responsible for the so called damages if any. The petitioner ought to have obtained a detailed expert report as to real cause of the alleged incident, if any and the extent and the value of the damages to be ascertained. But there is no such report. The second opposite party had not offered the replacement guaranty for their product.
The first opposite party still purchased such machines from the second opposite party so there is no deficiency of service from the part of the second opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the evidence part the complainant adduced evidence through PW1 and PW2 along with Ext. A1 to A9 and C1 and C1(a). The opposite parties had adduced no evidence.
On the detailed perusal of the pleading and evidence on recorded we frame the following points:
- Whether deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party is established by the complainant ?
- If so what are the reliefs the complaint is entitled for ?
The complaint has been filed for compensation for the damages caused to the complainant from the part of the opposite party in supplying a defective motor water level control system on payment of Rs.5,500/- by the complainant. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by stating that though the product was not defective they had replaced it without any delay and the damages were caused due to the defective installation of water out flow pipe and the electrical system.
The complainant purchased automatic non-water immersed micro controller based water level controller from the opposite party and they had installed the same at the complainant’s house. After the installation, on the second day itself the equipment stopped working causing water flow to the inside of the house. The counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the product manufactured by the second opposite party and installed by the first opposite party was not at all defective. But it was because of the defect of the outflow pipe that water happened to flow inside on the occasion of filling the tank.
So it is assumed that due to the wrong installation of the out flow pipe water over flow from the tank would not be drained out properly. The second opposite party who is the manufacturer of the said water level controller equipment has replaced the alleged defective product at the first instance according to the warranty condition. Both the opposite parties raise the contention that the equipment was not defective but the complainant had connected the U.V. Water Sterilizing System (U.V. Plazma) along with water level control device, the mishap occurred. This was against the warranty and the instruction given by the opposite party at the time of purchase. The opposite party did not produce any instruction manual of such product. The complainant denied that he was not supplied with installation instruction. In Ext.A2 which is the condition of warranty also no such installation instructions are seen given the first opposite party also at the time of installation did not care to advise the complainant for the proper installation. He was not instructed to install of U.V. Water Sterilizing System (U.V. Plazma) along with the water level control system. Moreover the complainant himself deposed that there was no such installation instructions, the U.V. Water Sterilizing System (U.V. Plazma) was connected to one of the switch on the distribution board. The water level control system was connected to another switch.
The first opposite party being the manufacturer of the product should have clearly given the instruction for successful installation and first opposite party is bound to install the product carefully. The first opposite party should have told the complainant that for the proper working of the device no other equipment should be connected to the entire system but no such advice was seen given to the complainant and the first opposite party has installed the device without disconnecting the U.V. Water Sterilizing System (U.V. Plazma). So it can be inferred that the opposite parties have supplied and installed such product negligently without assuring the proper use of the equipment by the complainant. Thus the opposite parties have rendered deficient services to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the alleged defective equipment provided by the opposite party was defective and the damages caused to his house was due to this defective product. The water level control system was originally meant for disconnecting the water supply to the tank automatically on the event of filling the tank, to prevent the overflow. But here in this case due to the defective working of the water level control system, the water supply was not disconnected. Consequently it overflowed. Though the opposite party alleges that due to the installation of U.V. Water Sterilizing System (U.V. Plazma) the product was not working, they have failed to explain how it affected the working of the water level controller. The word “defect” is defined under the Consumer Protection Act as “defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in farce or [under any contract, express or implied, or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods”.
Regarding the damages caused to the house of the complainant there is no such report before commission to prove and assess the said damages. In the deposition of PW2 it is stated that damages were caused to the first floor and second floor of the house. But he is not specific about the damages ascertained even in his deposition and or in his report. Even in Ext.C1the report of the expert commission there is no mention of the damages caused to the house of the complainant. Moreover no such cogent evidence has been produce to prove that the water flood towards the inside of the house because of the defective of the product. So the damages occurred cannot be quantified. But it is evident that due to the installation of the defective product the water overflowed causing mental and financial sufferings to the complainant which is to be compensated by the opposite parties.
Hence the complainant is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant along with an interest of 9% from the date of complaint till realization.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th day of December, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of Complainant
PW1- A.K. Xavier
PW2-Baijumon V.K.
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Bill No.190 dated 15/11/18 issued by opposite party
A2- Warranty card dated 15/11/18 issued by opposite party
A3- Estate of the damaged portion Rs.1,92,000/-(subject to object)
A4- Fees Receipt dated 17/06/19 Rs.10,000/- (subject to object)
A5- Lower’s Notice dated 07.02.19 issued to opposite parties
A6- Series Postal receipts (2 nos)
A7- Series Postal Acknowledgement Card (2 nos)
A8- Reply Notice dated 13/02/19 issued by the opposite party
A9- Reply Notice dated 18/02/19 issued by the first opposite party
Commission Report
C1- Commission Report submitted by Expert Commissioner
(Sooraj T.K., dated 16/06/2010)
C1(a)- Photographs submitted along with Commission Report
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
