Kerala

Idukki

CC/71/2022

Saji Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Euotech - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :5.5.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.71/2022

Between

Complainant : Saji Mathew,

Onelil House,

Arakkulam P.O.,

Moolamattam, Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : Eurotech (The complete water solution),

Changaramkulam P.O.,

Malappuram District.

Represented by its Manager.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under :

 

Opposite party represented by its manager is a dealer in sanitary items of Eurotech brand. Complainant happened to visit Malayala Manorama Parppidam exhibition in 2013, wherein opposite party also had a stall displaying the above said sanitary items. Subsequently, on 26.1.2014, complainant along with one Mr. Joby had visited the showroom of opposite party at Changaramkulam in Malappuram district. Earlier in the stall, at the time of exhibition, opposite party had shown a brochure of product and had also given a CD relating to the products, to complainant. In addition to actual price of sanitary items, opposite party offered to give an additional special discount of 3% to complainant, along with free on site delivery. Subsequently, at the time of showroom visit, opposite party had given additional discount of 3% as promised earlier. He had also agreed to deliver the items free on site. Besides opposite party had offered to give 15 years warranty for all products. Complainant had given an order for sanitary items amounting to Rs.90,840/-. He had given an advance of Rs.50,000/-. On 27.3.2014, all items were delivered at site. Balance amount was paid by complainant to the driver of delivery vehicle. Complainant had fitted all sanitary items in his house. House warming of complainant was on 30.5.2014. Within one year, water tap costing Rs.2765/- had broken. Within a few years of purchase, wash basin had developed cracks and presently it is unusable due to cracks. Flush tank of European closet was not working. Cracks have developed in the closet also. Rubber seats of the closet are not available even in the showroom of opposite party. On 29.12.2021, complainant had gone to the showroom of opposite party in Chalakkudy and given a complaint. Showroom persons had promised to rectify the defects. Unfortunately, this was not done. Complainant had sent a message via whatsapp to opposite party. In answer, a reply message was sent to opposite party stating that warranty is only for 7 years for closet and 3 years for wash basin and taps. This is against assurance given by opposite party regarding 15 years warranty for all items. It is noticed by complainant that web site of opposite party only displays 9 years warranty. Opposite party had supplied inferior goods at an exorbitant price. He had not fulfilled his assurance of giving 15 years warranty to all products. This amounts to deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Complainant is entitled to get back the price paid for sanitary items along with compensation for deficiency in service. He prays for supply of good quality of sanitary items with a fresh warranty for 10 years from the date of supply or in the alternative for return of Rs.90,840/-, being the price paid by him for the defective sanitary items. He also seeks an award of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of replacement, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for pain and mental agony and such other reliefs which this Commission may deem fit to grant.

 

2. Complaint was admitted. Upon notice, opposite party had appeared and filed written version. Its contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

According to opposite party, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts. It is incorrect to say that complainant had visited the showroom of opposite party along with one Mr. Joby. There was no offer to give 15 years warranty for all products, from the side of opposite party. No such commitments were made by opposite party. These averments are raised only for making unlawful gains. Actual discount given was 40%. Pleadings that opposite party had given additional 3% as special discount are misleading. All the products were delivered to the premises of complainant as promised. Opposite party had not sold any tap worth Rs.2765/- to complainant. Taps sold by opposite party to complainant were made of good quality material and without any damages. Complainant has not informed opposite party about the alleged damages occasioned to the wash basin, European closet, non-functioning of flush tank, within the warranty period. These damages were caused due to rash and careless use of items or misuse. It may be also owing to faulty fitting by complainant for which opposite party is not responsible. Complainant had not approached opposite party on 29.12.2021 as alleged in complaint. Warranty offered was only 7 years for European closet and 3 years for wash basin and taps from the time of purchase. Products were sold with 40% discount and with an additional discount of 3%. Opposite party sells only 1^st quality products to its customers at a reasonable price. Complainant had never approached opposite party with product complaint during warranty period. Allegations of deficiency in service are not correct. Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Same is to be dismissed with costs.

 

3. Case was thereafter posted for steps and evidence. No oral evidence was tendered by complainant. Invoice relating to purchase of sanitary items produced by complainant was marked as Ext.P1. No evidence was tendered by opposite party, despite availing sufficient opportunity. Evidence was closed. There was no representation for opposite party at the time of final hearing. Complainant was represented. Heard the complainant. Now the points which arise for consideration are :

 

1) Whether the sanitary items supplied to complainant were defective ?

2) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite party ?

3) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

4) Final order and costs ?

 

4. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

Learned counsel for complainant has only repatriated the complaint averments. Ext.P1 is the invoice relating to purchase of sanitary items by complainant for a price of Rs.90,840/- from Changaramkulam showroom of opposite party. Purchases were made on 22.3.2014. No brochure or CD which the complainant claims as given to him from exhibition stall were produced from the side of complainant. No reason is given for non-submission of these materials. Defective items were not produced before the court. No commission was taken out for inspection of defective items either. Case of complainant that there was a promise by opposite party to give 15 years warranty for all products is not supported by any evidence. Further contentions that opposite party was contacted repeatedly, but there was no response from him are also not supported by any evidence. Complainant has not proved the allegations pertaining to defective goods or deficiency in service as contended by him. Hence we find that he is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Point No.4 :

 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs. Parties shall take back extra sets of copies, without delay.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of November, 2023

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Invoice relating to purchase of sanitary items by complainant for a price of

Rs.90,840/- from opposite party

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR