CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 04/06/2012
CC /103/2012
Robert Augustin,
S/o. Augustin, Elavungal Veedu, - Complainant
Nellikutti, Kannur – 670 632
(By Adv.A.K. Philip)
Vs
C.S. Abdul Hakkim,
Proprietor, Perfect Industries, Kaplippara,
Mundur, Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv. T.P.O. Akbar ali)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant has purchased a Rubber Rolling Machine (24 inch length 5 inch dia grooved and plain Rubber Rolling Machine) from the opposite party for manufacturing Rubber sheets for a sum of Rs. 32,540/-. The bill was given for Rs. 27,040/- ie for the machine of 24 inch length 41/2 inch dia grooved and plain Rubber Rolling machine. The complainant installed the Rubber Rolling Machine on 13/03/2011 and the same became defective after one month as the holes began to appear on the roller. Then the machine turned out to be useless for preparing rubber sheets. So the complainant suffered many difficulties for preparing rubber sheets. The complainant tried to inform the facts over phone but it was not attended by the opposite party. On 6/01/2012 the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party. The reply for the same was received by the complainant on 10/01/2012. On 25/01/2012 the complainant sent the registered letter again to the opposite party and requesting to bring the machine, if they have any supply in the locality of the complainant in Kannur. On 10/03/2012 the complainant brought the defective machine from Kannur to the opposite party workshop at Palakkad by hiring a jeep. Then only the opposite party has given replacement of the defective roller.
The above act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on their part and complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 37,230/- as the financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.
Opposite party admits that the complainant has purchased two rubber rolling machine as plain and grooved on 12/03/ 2011. Opposite party is collecting the parts of the said machine from Coimbatore and assemble it for supply. The Machine is not having any guarantee. It is not correct to say that the machine became useless as the holes began to appear on the plain shaft. Eventhough the complainant purchased the machine on 12/03/2011 the complaint regarding the machine was received only on 06/01/2012. In this letter complainant has not demanded any kind of charges such as loading charge and compensation. Then the opposite party replaced the plain roller shaft only to protect the interest of the complainant. In fact opposite party has no liability to replace the machine. It is quite natural to appear some holes on the plain shaft after the continuous usage. If at all there are some holes on the plain shaft it will not affect the making of the sheets because the sheets will pass through the grooved shaft also.
There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Complainant cross examined as PW1. Witness examined as PW2 to PW4. Ext. A1 to A7 except A4 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext. B1 to B2 marked on the side of opposite party.
Heard both parties.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues I & II
In this case the complainant has purchased a Rubber Rolling Machine ( plain and grooved) from the opposite party on 12/03/2011. The complainant installed the Rubber roller machine on 13/03/2011 and the machine became defective after one month as holes began to appear on the plain roller. So the machine became useless and the complainant forced to resort to alternative means to get the rubber sheets prepared which resulted in huge expense. On 10/03/2012 the complainant had to bring the defective machine from Kannur to the oppsoite party's workshop at Palakkad by hiring a jeep.
The purchase of the machine is admitted. Ext. A2, the photo copy of the registered letter dtd. 05/01/2012 sent by the complainant, shows that the machine he purchased became defective within one month itself and demanding replacement. Ext. A3 dtd.10/01/2012, shows that the opposite party is ready to replace the said machine which is defaulted. It shows that the opposite party replied within time. On 25/01/2012 the complainant sent a registered letter demanding the opposite party to bring the machine to Kannur if they have to deliver any rubber roller machine in Kannur or inform the convenient date for taking the machine as the complainant can save money and time. For Ext. B1 the opposite party has not sent any reply.
In the complaint the complainant mentioned many expenses as head leading charge, charge for making the rubber sheet, Jeep rent, charge for fitting machine on the platform etc. To prove the same the witnesses were examined. But none of them deposed in favour of the complainant except PW4. PW4 deposed that “പാലക്കാട്ടേക്ക് machine കൊണ്ടുപോയതിന് ഞാന് receipt കൊടുത്തിട്ടില്ല. വെള്ള പേപ്പറില് എഴുതി കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട് .
The oppsoite party has no case that the replacement of the machine was made at the neighbouring place of the complainant in Kannur. The opposite party replaced the plain shaft as it is defective.
Eventhough the holes on the plain shaft will not affect the making of the rubber sheet the machine became defective. It is not expected from a newly purchased machine.
In the result the complaint partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2013. Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Acknowledgement Card 2 nos dtd. 09/01/2012 and 28/01/2012.
Ext. A2- Copy of letter to the opposite party 2 nos dtd. 05/01/12 and 25/01/12.
Ext. A3- Copy of letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A5- Cash receipt dtd. 12/03/2011
Ext. A6 – Receipt dtd. 08/09/2012
Ext. A7 – Receipt dtd. 08/09/2012.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext. B1 – Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Ext. B2 – Photo for Rubber rolling plain and grooved .
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – Robert Augastin
PW2 – Scaria. K.M
PW3 -Sebastian. P.J.
PW4 – Binoy Thomas
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only )allowed as cost of the proceedings.
