DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 09.12.2021.
CC/227/2021
Sreekanth, S/o.Kuttisankaragupthan, -Complainant
Sreekanth Enterprises, Valappilthodi,
Kadambazhi puram, Ottapalam.
(By Adv.Raghudas SG)
VS
Best Machine Tools, - opposite party
Manager (Equipments Section),
Opposite Axis/Canara Bank,
Near Airtel Office, Kunnathurmedu,
Palakkad-678 013.
(By Adv.K.V.Sujith)
ORDER
BY SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a pressure pump from the opposite party. They assured six months warranty for the product. When the machine became defective on 04.10.2021, the complainant approached the opposite party and after service they charged Rs.4,000/-. But on the very next day itself, it stopped working and he informed this to the opposite party. The opposite party again repaired the machine and charged Rs.2,200/- for that. But it did not work and the opposite party promised to repair it. After repair, they again charged Rs.3,600/- on 10.11.2021. But the same problem persisted and the machined did not work. When he contacted the opposite party, they demanded Rs.5,000/- for repair; but the complainant was not ready to pay the amount . The opposite party did not issue any bill for payment of the above mentioned services.
He approached this Commission for taking coercive action against the opposite parties for cheating their customers and for not providing bills for the payment. He also prays for directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.9,800/-, being the amount paid by him for service and Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The main contentions raised by the opposite party in their version is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a RHP100 High Pressure Washer on 15.05.2018 which is manufactured by Rally Industries Ltd, Chennai. The opposite party is only a dealer of Rally Industries. The warranty and other major issue are provided by the manufacturer. The pressure pump has only six months warranty from the date of purchase, that even one time for manufacturing defects and motor within six months.
The complainant approached the opposite party on 06.10.2021 ie, after three years from the date of purchase with complaint of gun and hose. The gun and hose has no warranty after three years. New gun and hose were replaced and the complainant took the machine with full satisfaction. Again on 11.11.2021, he approached the opposite party with the complaint of motor pump and bypass valve kit and that was also replaced.
This pressure pump is to be used for domestic purpose like washing car and other vehicles. At the time of purchase itself, the opposite party has instructed the complainant that the machine can be used continuously for twenty minutes and after that five minutes rest is to be given. For washing house before painting another type of machine with more power has to be used. Here the complainant had used this machine for washing his house before painting and it is evident from the statement that his marriage was on 24.11.2021.
The employee or the opposite party has never demanded Rs.5,000/- towards repairing charge. The machine was under proper working condition after repair.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from them.
Further, the manufacturer of the pressure pump is a necessary party to the proceedings and this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
The opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of parties, the following points arise for consideration:-
1) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
2) Whether the pressure pump purchased by the complainant suffers from any defect as alleged by him?
3) Whether the defect in the machine is due to improper use by the complainant as alleged by the opposite party?
4) Whether the machine was in proper working condition after effecting repairs?
5) Whether the opposite party had provided invoices for the amount paid?
6) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
7) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
8) Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed IA.No.389/2022 for appointment of Expert Commissioner and it was allowed. He also filed IA Nos.442/2022 & 443/2022 for amending the complaint and for appointment of an Expert Commissioner. IA No.442/2022 if rejected as IA No.389/2022 is already allowed. IA.No.443/2022 is also dismissed. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from his side. The report filed by the Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1. Marking of Ext.C1 is objected by the counsel for the opposite party as it can be marked only through the Expert Commissioner. Complainant filed IA.No.699/2023 to cross examine the Expert commissioner and it was allowed. Expert commissioner was examined as CW1. The opposite party filed proof affidavit; no documents were marked from their side. Both parties filed notes of argument.
6. Point No.1
The opposite party in their version contended that the manufacturer of the pressure pump, Rally Industries Pvt. Ltd is a necessary party to the complaint and without them, proper adjudication of the complaint is not possible. The allegations in the complaint relates to the opposite party and it can be decided amongst them. Further, it is for the complainant to decide whom are to be included in the party array. Hence, manufacturer is not a necessary party for the adjudication of this complaint. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
7. The complainant purchased a pressure pump from the opposite party’s shop. Ext.A2 dated 15.05.2018 is the Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party for the purchase of “RHP 100 High Pressure Washer”. Ext.A4 is the instruction manual “which shows a guarantee valid for six months from the date of purchase. On 04.10.2021, the machine stopped working and he approached the opposite party for repair. He paid Rs.4,000/- for the service. But on 06.10.2021, it again became defective and was repaired by the opposite party and they charged Rs.2,200/- for that. The machine was not working evenafter the repair and the opposite party’s staff once again repaired the machine and charged Rs.3,600/- for that. But the problem in the machine persisted and the opposite party demanded Rs.5,000/- for repair which the complainant was not willing to pay. Exts.A1 is the copy of the Google pay receipt showing the payment of Rs.2,200/- on 06.10.2021 and Rs.3,600/- on 10.11.2021. Ext.A3, the account statement for the period from 06.10.2021 to 10.11.2021 also shows the transfer of amounts to the opposite party.
8. In order to find out the defect in the machine, Expert Commissioner was appointed as per the order in IA No.389/2022. In his report Ext.C1, the Commissioner has reported that “The machine was run for 15 minutes, two times. The machine performance is adequate. The machine worked for 15 minutes continuously without any major marks of damage. Pressure generation of the machine is also satisfactory.”
He further noted that “However the machine generates an occasional noise, which is not a concern for a machine of four years old”.
9. The complainant filed objection to this report stating that the Commissioner omitted the report the emission of sound and smell from the machine on continuously working for 15 minutes. The Expert commissioner has not inspected the machine by opening it and he filed this report without properly examining.
During the examination of CW1 (Expert Commissioner), he deposed that “അഴിച്ചു പരിശോധിക്കേണ്ട ആവശ്യം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. കാരണം machine working condition ആയിരുന്നു.”
From Ext.C1, it is clear that the machine is in proper working condition. CW1 in his deposition also stated that since the capacity of the machine is 15 minutes, it has to be stopped after that. The machine cannot be worked continuously without break. Eventhough no evidence was adduced to show that the machine became defective due to improper usage by complainant; Ext.C1 shows that the machine’s performance is adequate after repair. Point 2 to 4 are decided accordingly.
10. Point No.5
The complainant had contended that he paid Rs.4,000/-, Rs.2,200/- and Rs.3,600/- to the opposite party for the repair of the machine. Exts.A1 and A3 shows the payment of Rs.2,200/- and Rs.3,600/-. The complainant states that the opposite party had not provided any bill for the payment of the above amounts.
The opposite party in their version admits that the complainant approached them with complaint of gun and hose on 06.10.2021 and they replaced the parts. Again on 11.11.2021, he came with complaint of motor pump and bypass valve kit and the opposite party replaced that. Since the product is not under warranty there is nothing wrong in charging amount for the service and repair. But bill has to be issued for the service. Here the opposite party has not mentioned anywhere that they had issued proper bill for the work done. They only contended that they did not demand Rs.5,000/- for repair. They did not produce the copy of the bill before the Commission to contradict the complaint averment. The non-issuance of bill for the amounts paid is an Unfair Trade Practice. Issue No.5 is found against the opposite party
11. Points 6 to 8
As per Ext.C1 report, the machine is good in working condition after repair. The opposite party had repaired the machine (which is out of warranty) by replacing defective parts. Further, the Commissioner has noted that the machine had small noise and other problems relating to its period of use of more than four years. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the amount paid for repair.
12. But there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in not providing the invoices/bills for the repair as discussed under point No.5 and they are bound to pay a compensation to the complainant for that. So, the complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- for their unfair trade practice and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of April, 2024. Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The copy of the Google pay receipts issued by complainants to the opposite party.
Ext.A2: Original tax invoice issued by the opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3: Statement of account issued by Punjab National Bank to the complainant.
Ext.A4: Original warranty card issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A5: Inspection details issued by the complainant to expert commissioner Muhemmed Shefeek.
Ext.C1: Expert Commissioner’s report.
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 : 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.
