O R D E R Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member The case of the complainant presented on 2..7..2009 is as follows: He is an agriculturist and for the irrigation purpose, he intended to construct a pond and during the construction work we felt the need of a diesel motor pump for dewatering as the electrical pump set which he was having is not conductive for dewatering. So in order to purchase a new diesel motor pump set he approached the 1st opposite party and at the suggestion and inducement he was forced to purchase an Usha pump set and paid an amount of Rs. 20,382/- towards the value of the motor pump which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party and his employees came to the complainant’s work place where the construction of the pond was in progress and installed the pump set at -2- 1.P.M on 27..2..2009. On the very next day itself the motor pump set did not work as there was manufacturing defects of the pump set and it was emanating huge column of smoke and it was not functioning. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party complaining the mechanical defects of the motor pump and the mechanic of 1st opposite party inspected the machine and found that he could not repair the same and so the complainant entrusted the pump set with the 1st opposite party and demanded him to repair at the earliest for continuing the dewatering work. But the 1st opposite party did not repair or gave another motor pump for urgent need of the complainant. As the work has to be completed immediately the complainant was forced to hire another pump set for dewatering the pond and to avoid huge damage on account of the loss of labour charges. He paid an amount of 14,000/- as rent for the pump set. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their separate versions. The version of the 1st opposite party contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant did not paid the full price. As requested by the complainant, the opposite party visited site and shown to the complainant how to operate the pump set. The complainant voluntarily and forcibly returned the pump set to the shop of the 1st opposite party. It is found that the complainant worked the pump set against the guide lines which are known to the complainant and are described in -3- the brochure of the pump set. The complainant filed a complaint before the Kuravilangadu Police Station against the 1st opposite party and the police authorities mediated the matter and suggested to give a new pump set to the complainant. But the complainant was not accepted the suggestion even though the 1st opposite party was ready for giving a new pump set. The complainant illegally demanded return of the amount paid. The mediation and suggestion was endorsed in the register of the Kuravilangadu police station signed by the complainant, the 1st opposite party and Sub Inspector of police. There was no loss to the complainant as alleged. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. The version of the 2nd opposite party is contending as follows: The complainant has purchased one ‘Usha Portable Diesel Engine’ from the 1st opposite party, who is the Authorized dealer of the 2nd opposite party. The dealer convincingly explained to the complainant about the operations of the product and also issued the operators manual. The 1st opposite party’s employees erected the diesel engine at the site and it functioned in full satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant voluntarily and forcibly returned pump set to the shop of the 1st opposite party in spite of the replacement offer made by the 2nd opposite party in March 2009 itself. The complainant operated the engine against the guidelines which are known to the complainant and are described in the brochure, installation and maintenance manual of the engine. The 2nd opposite party was not liable for the damaged caused to the complainant. The 2nd opposite -4- party has sincerely made all efforts to redress the grievance of the complainant, within time. The 2nd opposite party send fresh unit to the 1st opposite party authorized dealer and thereafter on 12..11..2009 issued a letter to the complainant intimating him to contact the 1st opposite party and get the replacement of the unit. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 and A2. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and operators manual which is marked as exhibit B1. Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that motor pump set became defective within a short time after purchase. According to him the pump set having manufacturing defect. The opposite parties has taken a contention that the alleged mal functioning of the motor pump set was due to different labours were using the pump set continuously without any brake and without following the guidelines specifically given in the user’s Installation and Maintenance Manual. According to the opposite parties after completing the use of the pump set the complainant forcibly entrusted the pump set to the 1st opposite party and demanded to return of price money. Moreover the opposite parties are ready and willing to replace the alleged pump set with a new one. But the complainant was not accepted the offer made by the opposite parties. From the available evidence and documents it can be seen that the alleged motor pump set -5- having some defects. That is why the opposite parties offered to replace the pump set with a new one. The same offer was made by the opposite parties before the Kuravilangadu Police Station. But the complainant was not accepted the replacement of the new motor pump set. Admittedly the alleged defects was happened within a short period after purchase. We have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. In the result the complaint is allowed as follows: We direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the pump set ie. Rs. 20,382/- as per A1 purchase bill Dt; 27..2..2009 to the complainant and pay Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing this complaint ie. 2..7..2009 till payment. Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan,Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents produced by complainant: Ext. A1: Purchase bill dtd: 27..2..2009 Ext. A2: Copy of letter Dtd: 12..11..2009 Document produced by Opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of operators manual. By Order,
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
