Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/22/2014

The Proprietor,Thasarathy T.V.S Motors - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kannan - Opp.Party(s)

D.Geetha

31 Dec 2014

ORDER

  Date of Filing      : 19.05.2014

                                                                                         Date of Disposal: 31.12.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., …. MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.22/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 31^st  DAY OF DECEMBER 2014.

 

Dasarathy TVS (Dasarathy Motors)

On behalf of its Proprietor,

Poompuhar Road,

Mayiladuthurai.                                                        … Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

Kannan,

M/S Eswari RO Systems

 J44, Annai Complex,

Church Road, New Bus Stand,

Kumbakonam.                                                          … Opposite party

 

                   

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 17.12.2014 on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thirumathi. D.Geetha, the Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.V.V.Pandian, the counsel for the opposite party and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the complainant, a dealer in TVS two wheeler Motor Cycles purchased  two Wamax R.O. with cooler one 15 LPH and the other 25 LPH from the opposite party, a dealer for Rs.33,000/- and 46,000/- respectively as per the bill dated 03.05.2013 and they were installed in the newly started branch at Poombuhar road Mayiladuthurai on 02.05.2013, that the said water cooler did not function properly, the opposite party separated one cooler system at the Service Station took it for servicing and has not returned it despite the repeated contacts over telephone and mobile phone.  Even for the notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party under registered post, the latter has neither replied nor returned the cooler system after servicing.  This is sheer deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant had to purchase and install a new R.O. system of another company to fulfill the need of the customers.  The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.79,000/-(Rupees seventy nine thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 03.05.2013 onwards till date of payment, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs of this litigation and to grant such and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the opposite party is that the complainant does not came under the category of consumer as it is a commercial and profit motivated concern dealing with TVS motor business.  The water cooler supplied by the opposite party is genuine water cooler free from any any defect.  The water cooler installed by the opposite party at the business premises of the complainant was working properly at the time of demonstration and subsequently accepted by the complainant regarding its proper functioning.  The complainant’s business premises was newly opened with incomplete electrification system.  The water cooler supplied by the opposite party is free from any manufacturing defect but the lapses in the cooling system is due to shortage of power supply. When the opposite party was called for rectification of the system he clearly explained to the complainant about the short of supply of electricity.  The business premises was with temporary electric service connection with supply of 140-160 voltage up to 3 P.M. and after that the supply is reduced to 120 voltage and the electronic object required 200 voltage for proper function.  Due to the short supply of electrical power the compressor in the cooler system is not working properly i.e. on and off. Therefore for the shortage of electric supply the opposite party is not responsible and there is o defect in the cooler system either in manufacturing or in its installation.  The R.O. system in the show room with the capacity of 15 LPH is properly functioning and the cooler in the workshop with the capacity of 30 LPH alone is not working properly due to low voltage of electricity. The R.O. system was functioning properly up to 25^th September.  On receiving a complaint that the water is lesser cooling the opposite party arranged to check the cooling system with an efficient refrigerator mechanics and found that the compressor in the cooling system was not working properly due to low voltage of electricity.  Due to the fluctuation in the electricity supply the compressor became weak due to improper maintenance of the complainant.  The cooler system was mishandled by the complainant’s electrician and there was leakage of water.  The pump and the adopter in the cooler system were floating in the water and shocked on noticing it the opposite party gave warning that if the pump and adopter are floating in the water there is the possibility of electricity passing through water and endanger  human life due to shock, but it was not heeded by the workshop in charge Mr.Ravi & Maheshwaran. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as there is no manufacturing defect and the alleged defect is owing to  the shortage of electrical supply and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per Sec 2(d) of the  consumer Protection Act 1986.

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

                       3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

                       

                       

 

5. Point 1:  The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is a commercial and profit motivated concern and therefore not a consumer as defined under Sec.2(d) of the consumer Protection Act 1986.  The said contention is not acceptable for the reason that though the complainant is a business concern the Wamax  R.O. with cooler system were purchased by it only for their utility for their customers’ drinking water and those objects were not to be used for their business activities in any other manner. The utility of the said system has no nexus with the business activity of the complainant.

                        6. Point 2: The allegation of the complainant is that the Wamax RO with cooler system purchased from the opposite party are not functioning properly and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as he had not returned the compressor of one system with capacity of 30 LPH and the other system with capacity of 15 LPH is also not functioning and they had to purchase new RO system for the use of their customers.  The contention of the opposite party is that there is no manufacturing defect in the system and owing to shortage of electrical supply only the cooling system is not properly functioning and they have not been properly maintained and they were mishandled by the complainants’ electricians.

                        7. On the side of the complainant Exhibit A1, the Bill for the purchase of the two Wamax RO with cooler, Exhibit A2, the office copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party, Exhibit A3, the postal Acknowledgment card, Exhibit A4, the series of photographs showing the newly constructed building of the business concern of the complainant with the newly erected electrical Transformer adjoining the building, Exhibit A5, the related compact Disc, Exhibit A6, the invoice for the purchase of the certain machines such as Grinder, Air compressor, etc., Exhibit A7, the special Power Deed in favour of PW1 and the Exhibit A8, the card containing the particulars of Current Consumption Charges are filed as documentary evidence.

                        8. The main allegation of the complainant is that the cooler system of the Wamax RO is not properly functioning.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not made any allegation of any specific manufacturing system of the Wamax RO.  The complainant has purchased under Exhibit A1, two Wamax RO with capacity or 30 LPH and 15 LPH and it is not mentioned in the complaint as to which system was installed at the service station and which one was installed in the show room.  Only from the written version and proof affidavit of opposite party is is evident that the system with 30 LPH was installed at the Service Station.  The allegation is that there was lesser cooling of the water in it as the cooling system was not properly functioning.  The contention of the opposite party is that at the time of installation there was only temporary service connection of electricity to the premises and the cooling system was not functioning properly owing to the shortage of the voltage of electricity and as the building was newly constructed at the time of installation of the RO system there was no supply of 140-160 voltage of electricity till 3 P.M. and only if there was supply of not less than 200 voltage of electricity the coolant and the compressor could function properly and for the shortage of power in the supply of electricity neither he nor the manufacturer would be responsible.  It is further alleged by him that the electricians of the complainant had not properly maintained the system and on the other hand they have mishandled it too.

                        9. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the Exhibit A6 the invoice for the purchase of Bench Grinder and 5 HP Maruti Air Compressor and the Exhibit A8 the current consumption card would go to show that there is no shortage of electrical power as the said Grinder and Compressor could be operated only with high voltage of electricity.  The learned counsel for the opposite party has diluted the said argument, by pointing out that the said Exhibit A6 relates to the Opposite Party’s concern at a different address namely Koradad Mayiladuthurai whereas the building wherein the R.O. system is installed is a new one at Poompuhar road, Mayiladuthurai.  The Exhibit A8, the current consumption Card would reveal only the quantum of consumption of electricity in units and the relative charges therefor and therefrom one could not understand as to what was the voltage of electrical power supplied every now and then in a day.  Further the said Exhibit A8 has revealed that only from 16.07.2013 onwards the reading of electrical consumption is taken and it gives an inference that prior to that period electricity was consumed at temporary service connection.  The Exhibit A4 photographs of the building of the complainant’s concerned and the Exhibit A5, the related compact Disc have revealed that the building is a new one and the electrical Transformer is also newly installed.

                        10. As the opposite party has taken a specific and assertive defence that the Compressor of the RO with capacity of 25 LPH was not functioning properly only because of the shortage of voltage of electricity this Forum after hearing the oral arguments of both the sides, passed an order on 29.11.2014 directing the opposite party to fix the Compressor with the said RO system of 25 LPH at the complainant’s premises and see whether the cooling system is properly functioning as on date and adjourned the hearing to 15.12.2014 for submission of representations of both the counsels in that regard.  On 15.12.2014 the opposite party appeared in person and represented that the complainant did not permit him when he went to the business premises of the complainant with a new Compressor for testing as per the direction of this Forum.  He had also filed detailed memo in writing.  No explanation is given on the side of the complainant in this regard.

                        11. Since the complainant has not given co-operation for the testing of the Compressor as on the date wherein permanent service connection is given to the  complainant’s premises and the electrical transformer is installed newly this, Forum has to inevitably draw an adverse inference against the complainant and concludes that the compressor of the cooling system of the RO with 25 LPH was not previously functioning properly immediately  after its installation only owing to the shortage of voltage of electricity as contented by the opposite party and there is no defect in the cooling system of  the Wamax RO supplied to the complainant as alleged by him.

                        12. As regards the averments of the complainant that the Wamax RO with cooler 15 LPH is not functioning and the complainant has purchased new R.O system from another company there is no proof on the side of the complainant.

                        13. Hence this Forum finds that there  is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

                        14. Point 3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. But as the opposite party has failed to give a reply to the notice Exhibit A2 sent by the complainant claiming replacement of new coolers and to return the Compressor with capacity of 25 LPH even after the receipt of the said notice he is directed to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant towards cost, within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till date of its realization.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, directly typed by him corrected and pronounced by me on this  31^st    day of  December 2014.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex/A1.Dt.03.05.2013: The Bill for the purchase of the two Wamax RO with cooler given

    by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex/A2.Dt.19.12.2013: The office copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the

   opposite party.

Ex/A3.Dt.20.12.2013 The Acknowledgment card received by the opposite party.

Ex/A4.                        : The series of photographs showing the business concern of the

    complainant.

Ex/A5.                         : The related Compact Disc containing the series of photographs.

 

Ex/A6.Dt.20.03.2013: The Xerox copy of the invoice for the purchase of machines such

   as Grinder, Air compressor, etc.

Ex/A7.Dt.06.09.2014: The Special Power Deed in favour of PW1

Ex/A8.Dt.                   : The Xerox copy of the Current consumption card containing the

     particulars of Current Consumption Charges.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.22/ 2014

Order Dt.:31.12.2014.