By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant had purchased a Motor pump set from the Opposite Party on 19/05/2020 for the use of his fishpond. After fitting the pump set, it became defective on many occasions and a number of complaints were made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Even though the Opposite Party repaired it many times but the defect was not rectified properly, the defect in the motor pump continued to persist. Due to the defect of the motor pump it was found that large number of fishes were died and hence the Complainant sustained loss of Rs.18,000/- and sustained mental agony. At the time of purchase of the pump set, the Opposite Party had not given the purchase bill to the Complainant. After several requests by the Complainant, the Opposite Party issued a bill. The motor was manufactured in the year 2008 and given to the Complainant in the year 2020. The Complainant purchased the motor by spending Rs.12,800/-, he met Rs.2,800/- for maintenance. Therefore, the Complainant prayed to return back the purchase price of Rs.12,800/-, maintenance cost of Rs.2,800 / - and Rs.18,000 / - for the cost of the dead fishes from the Opposite Party.
3. In response to the notice the Opposite Party entered appearance through counsel on 10/01/2021. The case has been posted to 25/02/2022 with direction to file version within time. In spite of several posting date the Opposite Party had not filed version. On 31/05/2022 the Opposite Party/the learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party was called absent. Hence the Opposite Party was set ex-parte. On 15/06/2022 the Complainant filed proof affidavit. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. On the perusal of the above documents, we understood the genuineness of the complaint. Ext. A1 dated 3/3/2021, the invoice shows that the Complainant had paid Rs. 12,800/- towards the purchase of motor pump from the Opposite Party. Ext A2 dated 19/05/2020 is the warranty card which shows that one year warranty was provided on the said product. The Complainant is alleging that just after fitting the motor, it became defective as it stopped working. A perusal of the warranty card clearly shows that the defect is occurred within the warranty period. Though the Opposite Party entered appearance, he neither filed his version nor has he taken any steps to challenge the evidence placed before this Commission by the Complainant. So under the circumstances, we have no reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony supported by documentary evidence of the Complainant. The Commission found that there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, and the Complainant sustained difficulties. Hence the Complainant deserves to get relief as prayed for. The Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for the loss occurred to him.
In the result, the complaint is allowed with cost. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 33,600/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) to the Complainant within one month of the receipt of this order. Failing which the Complainant is entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum for the above amount from the date of this order till the realization of the amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June 2022.
Date of filing:18.03.2021.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Jose Mathew. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. dt:03.03.2021.
A2. Warranty Card.
A3. Receipt. dt:10.10.2020.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
