IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 17th day of March, 2009
Filed on 16.01.2008
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.09/08
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.A.Mohammed Raja, Sri.Issac,
Fathima Furniture, Proprietor,
Punnapra.P.O, Perfect Engineering Corporation,
Alappuzha-4. Main Road, Thalayolaparambu,
(By Adv.H.Hamsa Rawther) Kottayam Dist.,Kerala, Pin 686 605
(By Adv.Tony Antony)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows: - The complainant is a manufacturer and dealer of furniture items. The complainant, on 20th February 2007 purchased a machine shaft from the opposite party amongst other articles. The shaft so purchased from the opposite party developed defect and the said shaft was replaced, and to this effect the opposite party issued a letter to the complainant dated 24th February 2007. The said shaft once again fell to fault beyond repair. With the result, the complainant on 13th December 2007 approached the opposite party and demanded its replacement. The opposite party was hesitant to comply with the guarantee assured at the time of purchase. Notwithstanding repeated visits and time and again telephone call, the opposite party declined to replace the shaft. For the continuous 9 days, the complainant was constrained to keep his factory standstill. The complainant was forced to purchase a new shaft and replace the same. The complainant expended Rs.2400/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred only) for the said purpose. Resultantly, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only). Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent the opposite party appeared and filed version. The opposite party contends that the machine was being used for commercial purpose, and for the said reason the complaint is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, the particular machine was overused and misused. It was being handled negligently. Above and beyond, the machine was used beyond its capability which led to the imperfection of its shaft. In this back drop, the complainant himself is responsible for the shortcomings if any emerged, the opposite party submits. Further a shaft anew costs only Rs.1200 (Rupees thousand two hundred only), and the amount the complainant projected is blown-up one. The opposite party is not liable for the damage or loss if any caused due to the negligence of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, opposite party asserts.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and the documents Exbts Al to A8 were marked. The opposite party opted not to mount the witness box or to produce any document.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of both the parties, the points come up before us are:-
( 1) whether the shaft, the complainant purchased from the opposite party turned defective?
(2) if yes, whether the opposite party is liable for the same?
4. Concededly, the complainant purchased the shaft from the opposite party. It is not in dispute that the said shaft ran into in perfection and out of use. According to the complainant, the shaft in question went out of order when the guarantee the opposite party offered was in force. The complainant requested the opposite party time and again to replace the defective shaft. The opposite party declined to replace the same on the contention that the shaft fell to shortcomings due to misuse and overuse by the complainant. We peruse the materials available on record. It seems that the opposite party chose to disagree with the complainant case. Save the same, the opposite party moved any further to prove its version or to disprove the other one advanced by the complainant. The opposite party appears to have adduced no evidence worth a paper to rebut the complainant case or to fortify any of its contentions. Needless to say, the complainant case stands unassailed. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.
5. In view of the circumstance and findings herein above, the opposite party is ordered to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.2400/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred only) the cost of the shaft the complainant replaced. The opposite party is further directed to pay him an amount of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and harassment he sustained, which would serve the present purpose. The opposite party shall comply with the order within thirty days on receipt of this order.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly. The parties shall bear their own cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 17th day of March 2009.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A. Mohammed Raja(Witness)
Ext. A1 - Invoice No.579 dated,20.02.07
Ext. A2 - Letter from Perfect Engineering corporation dated, 24.02.07
Ext. A3 - Guarantee Certificate from Perfect Engineering corporation dated,
20.02.07
Ext. A4 - Letter to the Perfect Engineering corporation dated, 13.12.07
Ext. A5 - Receipt of RS.500/- dated, 21.12.07
Ext. A6 - Cash / Credit from Ajit Bearing Company No.30289 dated, 18.12.07
Ext. A7 - Cash Bill from The Kerala Mechanical & Engineering Works No.2481
dated, 21.12.07
Ext. A8 - Tax Invoice Cash / Credit from Union Trading Company No.6307
dated, 18.12.07
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
