Calicut Trading Compnay V/S C N Sudhakaran Nair - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

154/2000

C N Sudhakaran Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

Calicut Trading Compnay - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2007

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 154/2000

C N Sudhakaran Nair						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Calicut Trading Compnay						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K GHEEVARGHESE

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief of the complaint is as follows. The Complainant purchased Kirlosker make 10 HP Motor and other accessories from the shop of the Opposite Party. The purchase was upon the condition that the delivery of the materials will be at Lower Bekky where the Complainant resides and more over the motor and other accessories would be fitted under the expense of the Complainant. The cost of the motor and other accessories was Rs.67,599/-. The Complainant had also paid Rs.1,000/- to the person who came for the installation of the equipments and motor. When the motor was started in order to Pump water for the irrigation purpose, the pipe connected to the motor leaked in bursting. The Opposite Party is informed and letter was also sent on 14.2.2000 to remind difficulties cost to the Complainant. Latter on 4.03.2000 a registered notice was sent to the Opposite party to repair and replace the fittings. The Opposite party carried out some repair and the pipes which burst were also rearranged. However the repair offered from the side of the Opposite Party became useless being the pipe used was of low quality. The Opposite Party's supplied 300 meters of pipe which cost of Rs.9,800/- the pipe as per the terms of the sale had a guaranty of one year. The motor 10 HP supplied to the Complainant was four pulley instead of five pulley. The length of pipe was also less ie Rs.244.90 meter instead of 300 meters. The Complainant purchased the motor and other accessories to install the sprinkler system for the cultivation. The charge levied for the 10 HP Kirlosker make motor was in excess of Rs.2,216/- and four wheel flexible pipe Rs.146/- was collected beyond the bill amount and for the base plate Rs.840/- was collected beyond the bill amount. The Opposite Party collected from the Complainant Rs. 3,202/- in excess than the actual price the Complainant is to be replaced with five pulley on the pump shaft or otherwise return the amount charge for the sale. The fitters of the Opposite Party had (Contd . . . . 2) - 2 - also taken some of the fittings for which the amount to be compensated. The complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to repair the Pump set so as to make it use for the purpose, replace the leaking 300 meters pipe with pipes of good quality or to return Rs.9,600/- to the Complainant as the price of the pipe. The complaint is to be compensated with Rs.50,000/- for the loss caused in the plantation and 50,000/- is also to be paid towards the other damages and mental agony. The fitting charge levied from the Complainant is to be refunded along with the cost. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. According to them the sale of 10 HP Motor and other accessories were admitted, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint filed is nothing but a step taken by the Complainant to evade from the payment of amount to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed a suit No.253/00 before the Munsiff Court Kalpetta on 11.7.2000 in order to realise the balance amount due from the Complainant. The total cost of the Pump and accessories is Rs.67,599/- towards which the Complainant paid only 25,000/-. The Opposite Party had not agreed in any terms to supply the pump set and other materials at the residence of the Complainant. The materials supplied to the Complainant was only upon the introduction of him by friendly customer. After the payment of Rs.5,000/- the last installment on 01.01.2000, the Complainant did not turn up to the Opposite Party for any payment. The act of the Opposite party is deliberate and with the intension of cheating, a registered notice sent to the Complainant in the known address was also returned with an endorsement no such addressee. After obtaining the address a lawyer notice was sent to the Complainant on 20.06.2000 demanding the balance amount with 25% interest. The complaint is filed as a defense for the suit filed in Munsiff Court, Kalpetta numbered OS.253/2000. Regarding the fitting works carried out in the premises of the Complainant, the Opposite Party had no knowledge of it. It is used to them to sell the materials from the shop the fittings and other works are usually done by the parties themself, who purchase the things. The loss and (Contd . . . .3) - 3 - damages are false. The Opposite party is not liable for the damages however the materials supplied by the Opposite parties are of good quality. No excess amount was levied other what actually charged. The petition is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. Points that are to be decided: 1.Whether the Complainant is entitled for any compensation? 2.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant was examined as PW1. It is admitted that the purchase of the motor and other accessories were sold to Complainant by the Opposite Party. The Ext.A1 series are the bills given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Ext. A2 is the letter dated 14.02.2000 sent by the Opposite Party. Ext. A3 is the copy of the registered letter sent to the Opposite Party. It is seen from the records that the purchase of the motor and other accessories were not upon the cash given in outright. Though the Complainant had not given the entire amount of the material cost at the time of purchase motor and accessories were released to him. It is implied from the deal itself that the purchase was upon deferred payment. The partner of the Opposite Party's firm is examined as OPW1. The contention of the Opposite Party that it was not used to them to sell the pump set upon the conditions of fitting these at the premises of the Complainant's residence. The Commissioner was appointed to inspect and report the efficiency of the motor, quality of the material supplied and to assess the damages. Ext.C1 is the commission report, the Opposite Party objected vaguely the report of the Commissioner, according to CW1 the Commissioner the motor and pump set supplied to the Complainant had some defects. The pipe used for irrigation except 20 numbers were of low density. For an irrigation purpose the low density pipe will not serve the purpose. It was noted by the Commissioner that the pipe of low density were broken and 13 pieces of pipes were noted even the total length of the pipe supplied (Contd. . . . . . .4) - 4 - by the Opposite Party was not tallying with the length which was actually purchased. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant alleged the dispute in order to evade from the liability of the amount owed to the Opposite Party. Ext.B1 is the notice sent to the Complainant which is returned back. Ext.B2 is the copy of the letter kept in the Office. Ext.B3 is the copy of plaint which was filed in the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta numbered O.S.253/2000. The copy of the written statement filed by the defended is the Ext.B4. The relief prayed by the Opposite Party in the suit is to get the balance amount due from the Complainant, it is entirely a different aspect it is substantiated by the evidence that the Complainant had subjected to loss upon the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. The Complainant was not served the purpose of irrigation it is also ascertained by the testimony of the commissioner. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant. Point No.2: The Complainant had to sustain damages due to the inadvertent and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party supplied the Complainant the the polythene pipe of low density which did not ensuit for irrigation purpose. The cost of the 300 meters of polythene pipe comes Rs.9,600/- as per the Ext. A1 series. The price of the polythene pipe of low quality is to be returned to the Complainant. The report of the commissioner the Ext.C1 categorically stated that the Complainant's cultivation had also damaged but the extend of the damage is not estimated in the report. The Complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The fitting charge received by the Opposite Party Rs.1,000/- is also to be refunded, the Opposite Party collected an excess amount but it is not substantiated by the evidence. (Contd. . . . .5) - 5 - In the result the Opposite Party is directed to refund the Complainant Rs.9,600/- (Rupees Nine thousand Six hundred only) the cost of the PVC pipe of low quality. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) also to be paid to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of this order. In case of any failour on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of the law. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 7th day of November 2007.

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief of the complaint is as follows. The Complainant purchased Kirlosker make 10 HP Motor and other accessories from the shop of the Opposite Party. The purchase was upon the condition that the delivery of the materials will be at Lower Bekky where the Complainant resides and more over the motor and other accessories would be fitted under the expense of the Complainant. The cost of the motor and other accessories was Rs.67,599/-. The Complainant had also paid Rs.1,000/- to the person who came for the installation of the equipments and motor. When the motor was started in order to Pump water for the irrigation purpose, the pipe connected to the motor leaked in bursting. The Opposite Party is informed and letter was also sent on 14.2.2000 to remind difficulties cost to the Complainant. Latter on 4.03.2000 a registered notice was sent to the Opposite party to repair and replace the fittings. The Opposite party carried out some repair and the pipes which burst were also rearranged. However the repair offered from the side of the Opposite Party became useless being the pipe used was of low quality. The Opposite Party's supplied 300 meters of pipe which cost of Rs.9,800/- the pipe as per the terms of the sale had a guaranty of one year. The motor 10 HP supplied to the Complainant was four pulley instead of five pulley. The length of pipe was also less ie Rs.244.90 meter instead of 300 meters. The Complainant purchased the motor and other accessories to install the sprinkler system for the cultivation. The charge levied for the 10 HP Kirlosker make motor was in excess of Rs.2,216/- and four wheel flexible pipe Rs.146/- was collected beyond the bill amount and for the base plate Rs.840/- was collected beyond the bill amount. The Opposite Party collected from the Complainant Rs. 3,202/- in excess than the actual price the Complainant is to be replaced with five pulley on the pump shaft or otherwise return the amount charge for the sale. The fitters of the Opposite Party had (Contd . . . . 2) - 2 - also taken some of the fittings for which the amount to be compensated. The complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to repair the Pump set so as to make it use for the purpose, replace the leaking 300 meters pipe with pipes of good quality or to return Rs.9,600/- to the Complainant as the price of the pipe. The complaint is to be compensated with Rs.50,000/- for the loss caused in the plantation and 50,000/- is also to be paid towards the other damages and mental agony. The fitting charge levied from the Complainant is to be refunded along with the cost. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. According to them the sale of 10 HP Motor and other accessories were admitted, the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint filed is nothing but a step taken by the Complainant to evade from the payment of amount to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed a suit No.253/00 before the Munsiff Court Kalpetta on 11.7.2000 in order to realise the balance amount due from the Complainant. The total cost of the Pump and accessories is Rs.67,599/- towards which the Complainant paid only 25,000/-. The Opposite Party had not agreed in any terms to supply the pump set and other materials at the residence of the Complainant. The materials supplied to the Complainant was only upon the introduction of him by friendly customer. After the payment of Rs.5,000/- the last installment on 01.01.2000, the Complainant did not turn up to the Opposite Party for any payment. The act of the Opposite party is deliberate and with the intension of cheating, a registered notice sent to the Complainant in the known address was also returned with an endorsement no such addressee. After obtaining the address a lawyer notice was sent to the Complainant on 20.06.2000 demanding the balance amount with 25% interest. The complaint is filed as a defense for the suit filed in Munsiff Court, Kalpetta numbered OS.253/2000. Regarding the fitting works carried out in the premises of the Complainant, the Opposite Party had no knowledge of it. It is used to them to sell the materials from the shop the fittings and other works are usually done by the parties themself, who purchase the things. The loss and (Contd . . . .3) - 3 - damages are false. The Opposite party is not liable for the damages however the materials supplied by the Opposite parties are of good quality. No excess amount was levied other what actually charged. The petition is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. Points that are to be decided: 1.Whether the Complainant is entitled for any compensation? 2.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant was examined as PW1. It is admitted that the purchase of the motor and other accessories were sold to Complainant by the Opposite Party. The Ext.A1 series are the bills given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Ext. A2 is the letter dated 14.02.2000 sent by the Opposite Party. Ext. A3 is the copy of the registered letter sent to the Opposite Party. It is seen from the records that the purchase of the motor and other accessories were not upon the cash given in outright. Though the Complainant had not given the entire amount of the material cost at the time of purchase motor and accessories were released to him. It is implied from the deal itself that the purchase was upon deferred payment. The partner of the Opposite Party's firm is examined as OPW1. The contention of the Opposite Party that it was not used to them to sell the pump set upon the conditions of fitting these at the premises of the Complainant's residence. The Commissioner was appointed to inspect and report the efficiency of the motor, quality of the material supplied and to assess the damages. Ext.C1 is the commission report, the Opposite Party objected vaguely the report of the Commissioner, according to CW1 the Commissioner the motor and pump set supplied to the Complainant had some defects. The pipe used for irrigation except 20 numbers were of low density. For an irrigation purpose the low density pipe will not serve the purpose. It was noted by the Commissioner that the pipe of low density were broken and 13 pieces of pipes were noted even the total length of the pipe supplied (Contd. . . . . . .4) - 4 - by the Opposite Party was not tallying with the length which was actually purchased. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant alleged the dispute in order to evade from the liability of the amount owed to the Opposite Party. Ext.B1 is the notice sent to the Complainant which is returned back. Ext.B2 is the copy of the letter kept in the Office. Ext.B3 is the copy of plaint which was filed in the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta numbered O.S.253/2000. The copy of the written statement filed by the defended is the Ext.B4. The relief prayed by the Opposite Party in the suit is to get the balance amount due from the Complainant, it is entirely a different aspect it is substantiated by the evidence that the Complainant had subjected to loss upon the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. The Complainant was not served the purpose of irrigation it is also ascertained by the testimony of the commissioner. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant. Point No.2: The Complainant had to sustain damages due to the inadvertent and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party supplied the Complainant the the polythene pipe of low density which did not ensuit for irrigation purpose. The cost of the 300 meters of polythene pipe comes Rs.9,600/- as per the Ext. A1 series. The price of the polythene pipe of low quality is to be returned to the Complainant. The report of the commissioner the Ext.C1 categorically stated that the Complainant's cultivation had also damaged but the extend of the damage is not estimated in the report. The Complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The fitting charge received by the Opposite Party Rs.1,000/- is also to be refunded, the Opposite Party collected an excess amount but it is not substantiated by the evidence. (Contd. . . . .5) - 5 - In the result the Opposite Party is directed to refund the Complainant Rs.9,600/- (Rupees Nine thousand Six hundred only) the cost of the PVC pipe of low quality. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) also to be paid to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of this order. In case of any failour on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of the law. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 7th day of November 2007.

......................K GHEEVARGHESE