Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

               : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

               : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member         Date of filing: 19/03/2011

                                                          (C.C.No.49/2011)  

Smt.K.Omana,

W/o.Late Sri Gopi,

Kuttath House,

P.O.Pulappatta,

Palakkad. 

(Adv.K.Dhananjayan)                                               -        Complainant

                                                                     V/s

1.Jayakrishnan,

   Proprietor,

   M/s.Ajantha Machine Tools,

   Industrial Machinery Suppliers,

  10/687 (4), Ground Floor,

  Sree Devi Residency,

  Mettupalayam Street,

  Palakkad – 678 001

2.Officer in Charge,

   Authorised Signatory,

  M/s.Crompton Graves Regd.Office,

  at C.G.House, 6^th Floor,

  Dr.Annie Basanth Road,

  Worli, Mumbai – 400 030

(By Adv.V.Krishnadas)

3.M/s.Crompton Grieves,

  Cherupushpam Building,

  5^th Floor, 300-6 Shanmughan Road,

  Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 031.

  (Rep.by Manager / Authorised Signatory)     -        Opposite parties

  (By Adv.V.Krishnadas)

  O R D E R

          By  Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:

Complainant, a member of the Kudumbasree Unit started a self employment unit which is a food processing unit under the head of Stable Paddy Development Programme 2008-2009. It’s a unit for making rice powder, rice paste, neyyappam & also curry powder. Complainant took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. For starting the unit, one motor set, pulvariser wet  grinding machine, packing machine, refrigerator (optional) were to be installed. Accordingly order was placed before the 1^st opposite party along with the project report stating the requirement and  purpose for which machineries were to be installed. For electrification purpose complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.36,640/- to opposite party. 1^st opposite party was ordered to install 3 HP motor for working the pulavariser. On the next month of installation itself the motor and pulvariser became defective. Though intimated, 1^st opposite party   has not taken any steps to repair it. Further an electrician inspected the unit and reported that the motor coil of the pulvariser unit has been damaged and during the guarantee period it cannot be opened. From 4/2/10, the unit has been stopped functioning. Another electrician who has inspected the unit has discovered that the machinery supplied by the 1^st opposite party was only a 1.5 H.P.  motor as against the 3.0 HP as promised.  There is a price difference between 3 H.P. motor and 1.5 H.P. motor. Due to the act of opposite parties, the unit remained non functional and hence complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs. During the said period also complainant was paying interest towards the bank loan. Complainant is entitled to get the motor repaired  free of cost. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties being the manufacturer of the motor is bound to repair the motor set free of cost.

1^st opposite party set exparte. Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed version. According to the opposite parties 2 & 3, they are not responsible for any misrepresentation by 1^st opposite party. As per the complaint itself, 1.5 HP motor was used in place of 3 H.P. motor. Hence admittedly motor was used under load and strain for higher than its specifications. Opposite parties has not sold any motor to the complainant. Motor is a part of the machinery                                                           manufactured and sold by the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party is solely responsible for any defects. Also the guarantee card is void in respect of the complainant.   The warranty only cover use by the original purchaser and not by any subsequent transferee. Further warranty is only valid if the product is sold and installed by an authorized person. 1^st opposite party is not an authorized person for sale for opposite parties 2 & 3.  More over warranty does not cover any misuse as mentioned in the complaint.  Complainant has never   demanded the opposite parties to repair the product. There is considerable delay in filing of the complaint.  Opposite parties 2 & 3     prays to dismiss the complaint with cost of opposite parties.

Complainant and opposite parties 2 & 3 filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of opposite parties.

Issues that arise for consideration are

1.    Whether the act of 1^st opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice ?

2.    Whether  there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3.    If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?

Issue No.1

The definite case of the complainant is that for the purpose of starting a food processing unit for self employment complainant requested for supply of a 3 H.P. motor along with other machines to 1^st opposite party.  Opposite party made believe the complainant that the supplied motor was of 3 H.P.. Later  it became defective during the warranty period itself. It was examined by an electrician, then only complainant understood that instead of 3 H.P. motor she was supplied with only a 1.5 H.P. motor. Further grievance of the complainant is that opposite parties 2 & 3 being the manufacturer has not repaired the motor even though  became defective within the warranty period.

Opposite parties 2 & 3 on the other hand contented that complainant has never demanded them to repair the motor. Further the said motor was used under load and strain for higher than its specifications.  Further there is no privity of contract between  complainant and opposite parties 2 & 3.

Heard and gone through the entire evidence on record.

Ext.A1, cash bill shows that complainant has purchased a 3 H.P. electric motor priced Rs.7800/- along with other machines and accessories from 1^st opposite party.  Purchase is on 24/3/09. Rough repair report dated 11/2/10 is marked as Ext.A4. In the said report it is stated that there is a motor  coil damage to the pulvariser machine and the same cannot be opened and examine as the motor is within the warranty period.  Though Ext.A1 shows complainant has purchased a 3 H.P. motor, there is absolutely no evidence to show that she was supplied with a 1.5 H.P.  motor. Complainant has not taken out a commission to substantiate their contention. Apart from Ext.A4 there is no other evidence to show that  motor got damaged and defect is within the warranty period.  But for the reason that no contra evidence is adduced by 1^st opposite party. We believe the say of the complainant. Though complainant has called for the price list of 1.5 H.P. motor, opposite parties 2 & 3 has not produced the same. The act of charging price for 3 H.P. motor and supplying 1.5 H.P. motor amounts to unfair trade practice on the  part of 1^st opposite party.

Issue No.2

According to the complainant 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said motor. The role of 3^rd opposite party is not specifically stated in the complaint. Opposite parties 2 & 3 were made parties for the grievance of non repairing the motor within the warranty period. As rightly contented by opposite parties, complainant has no case that  they have ever requested the said opposite party for repair of the motor. Not even a single letter is seen to be addressed to opposite parties 2 & 3.  Further opposite parties has contented that warranty is not applicable in case of misuse. Admittedly complainant has used 1.5 H.P. motor in place of 3 H.P. which is their requirement. As there is an excess load, motor could have got damaged. Going through the facts and evidence on record, we do not find any reason to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 & 3.

Issue No.3

Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation. It is claimed under the head of loss on account of non functioning  of the unit, payment of loan amount and further for mental agony and cost of the proceedings. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that what is the actual loss suffered on account of the closure of the unit. Even though  Ext.A5 shows that 1 lakh is the loan amount sanctioned, there is no evidence  to show that any repayment was made. There is  no evidence before the Forum to know that what is the price difference between 3 H.P. Motor and 1.5 H.P. Motor. As per the Ext.A1 the price of 3 H.P. motor is Rs.7,300/-. Hence we fix an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant payable by 1^st opposite party.

In the result, complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties 2 & 3 stands exonerated from any liability. 1^st opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only)  as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

        Pronounced in the open court on this the  1^st  day of February  2012

                                                                                 Sd/-

Seena.H

President

                                                                                  Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

                                                                                  Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

                                                APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Original Bill  dtd.24/3/09 for Rs.33,240/-  issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A2 –  Original Bill  dtd.24/3/09 for Rs.3400/-  issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A3  –   Original Guarantee Card issued by opposite parties 1 & 2

Ext.A4 –   Rough repair report prepared by Suresh K. dtd.11/2/10       

Ext.A5 –   Copy of the loan pass book for Rs.1,00,000/ issued by Pulappatta

               Co.Op.Urban Credit Society

Ext.A6 –   Xerox copy of the project report

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite parties

Nil  

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.