Complaint filed on: 19-10-2015 Disposed on: 08-12-2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.115/2015
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.P.Veerabhadrappa,
S/o. Palaregowda,
Aged about 53 years,
Agriculturist, Residing at Halkurike Village, Honnavalli hobli, Tiptur taluk,
Tumkur district
(By Advocate Sri.J.M.Mutharayappa)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
- Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd, P.B.No.5555, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru city-55
- M.V.Surabhi Essar Machines and Company, No.84, SJP Road, Bengaluru city-02
- The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Tiptur taluk, Tiptur.
(OP No.1 Exparte)
(OP No.2-by Advocate Sri.K.S.Ugregowda)
(OP No.3-In-person)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint has filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to replace the new machine to the complainant and to pay Rs.30,000=00 towards general damages for mental shock and agony, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant is an agriculturist. The 1st OP is the manufacturer and the 2nd OP is the company dealing in supply of machines such as pulverises etc. The complainant had applied for purchase of the said pulverise machines under the scheme Mechanization National Mission on Micro Irrigation Programme Implementation by Agricultural Department on 9-9-2014. Under the above said scheme, the Government of Karnataka Agricultural Department have offered subsidy to the farmers who intend to purchase the said machine. Accordingly the complainant had deposited down payment of Rs.27,500=00 for the said machine model No.SEP 8-041, 7.5 HP towards the cost of the said machine. The Total cost of the machine is Rs.50,000=00. The Agricultural department gave subsidy of Rs.23,000=0 and accordingly, the said machine was delivered to the complainant on 17-3-2015.
The complainant further submitted that, the said machine is having 12 months guarantee period. The complainant alleged that, the above said machine is not working properly and it is having manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant has approached the 2nd OP several times and sought for repair or to replace the same. But the 2nd OP has not taken any action in the matter. The complainant has intimated the above fact to the Agricultural department two times i.e. on 2-6-2015 and 6-7-2015. The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Tiptur had also directed the 2nd OP do the needful. Inspite of that, the 2nd OP has not taken any action in the matter by either repairing the said machine nor to replace the same. The OPs have shown deficiency in service in not rectifying the manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant got issued legal notice to the 2nd OP on 11-8-2015. The said notice was served on the 2nd OP, but OPs have not rectified the manufacturing defect in the machine. Hence the present complaint is filed.
3. In response to the notice, the 1st OP has not appeared before the forum and he was called out absent and placed him exparte. The OP No.2 and 3 have appeared before the forum and filed separate objection.
4. In the objection, the 2nd OP pleaded that, the averments made in the complaint are false and denied and other averments made in the complaint is not within the knowledge of the 2nd OP.
The 2nd OP further submitted that, as per agriculture scheme 2014-15, the 2nd OP had supplied the 7.5 HP Pulveriser machine for a sum of Rs.27,500=00 only and remaining amount of Rs.23,000=00 which is due from the 3rd OP i.e. subsidy amount.
The 2nd OP further submitted that, after purchase of the said machine, one mechanic by name. Prahalad had visited the complainant’s house and installed the said machine and demonstrated the same to the complainant. The complainant had issued satisfactory letter in favour of the 2nd OP on 12-5-2015. Hence there is no manufacturing defect in the said machine.
The 2nd OP further submitted that, even today, the said machine is working good condition and moreover the complainant does not have proper knowledge to handle the said machine. Without any technical report, the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect. Hence, the 2nd OP is ready to repair the same by sending mechanic to the complainant’s house, if the complainant is ready to pay labour and travelling expenses. The 2nd OP further submitted that, the complainant is using the said machine for the commercial purpose; hence the complaint is not maintainable under the CP Act. The 2nd OP is not the manufacturer; he is only the dealer of the said machine. Hence, the 2nd OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
5. In the objection, the 3rd OP submitted that, the complainant Sri.Veerabhadrappa was one of the applicants for supply of Agricultural processing units under subsidy scheme as per the government circular. The complainant had filed application on 9-9-2014 for the supply of 7.5 HP Pulveriser. On seniority basis on the direction from the department the complainant had paid Rs.27,500=00 through RTGS to M/s. Surabhi Essar Machines and Co. Bengaluru i.e. 2nd OP. As per the said direction for the supply of equipment order dated 10-2-2015 was issued and it was also instructed to issue loan bill to collect the subsidy amount for the supplied equipment.
The 3rd OP further submitted that, on 17-3-2015, 7.5 HP Pulveriser (Model SEP-8-04) was supplied to the complainant and the company persons visited the complainant’s village on 12-5-2015 to give training for using the said equipment. The 3rd OP further submitted that, the farmers including the complainant had issued satisfactory letter, as per the same the action has been taken for transfer of subsidy amount to the supplied company through the farmer’s bank account.
The 3rd OP further submitted that, the complainant had given a requisition to 3rd OP by requesting not to pay subsidy amount to 2nd OP company as the equipments are not working properly and as such the subsidy amount of Rs.23,000=00 was withheld. The 3rd OP has requested the 2nd OP through a letter to rectify the defect of the equipment. But the 2nd replied that they are not responsible for the mistake done by the complainant in using the equipment inspite of training given by the company. Hence, the 3rd OP is not responsible for any defect of the equipment. So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
6. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP No.2 and 3 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents along with the complaint, which were marked as Ex-C1 to 12. The 3rd OP has produced documents, which were not marked We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents produced by both parties and posted the case for orders.
7. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?
- What Order?
8. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the affirmative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
9. On careful scrutiny of the case of complainant on the background of material evidence of both parties as mentioned supra, it is an admitted fact that, on 17-3-2015 the complainant had purchased a Pulveriser 7.5 HP Machine Model No.SEP-8-04 for a sum of Rs.27,500=00 from the 2nd OP and Agricultural department sanctioned subsidy amount of Rs.23,000=00.
10. The main contention of the complainant is that, after installation of the above said machine, the machine was not working properly. Hence the complainant alleged that, there is a manufacturing defect in the machine. In this regard, the complainant has approached the 2nd OP several times and sought for repair or replace the said machine. The 2nd OP has not taken any action. Hence the complainant intimated the same fact to the 3rd OP on 2-6-2015 and 6-7-2015. Even though, the 2nd OP did not repair or replace the said machine.
12. The defence of the 2nd OP is that, the said Pulveriser machine is working under good condition and there is no manufacturing defect. The 2nd OP further alleged that, the complainant had no proper knowledge to handle the said machine. On the other hand, the 2nd OP has not visited the spot and inspected the machine. In the absence of any documents to show that, the 2nd OP attended the complainant, the 2nd OP has not produced documents for having repairs the machine. Further, with regard to technical report or opinion, since under the warranty no addition or alternation or repair is permitted. The 2nd OP is ready to repair the same, if the complainant is ready to pay labour and travelling charges.
13. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the Pulveriser 7.5 HP machine from the 2nd OP on 17-3-2015 and the said machine is having 12 months warranty period from the date of purchase. In this regard, the complainant has produced User Hand book for AC Induction Motors/Ex-C7, in 4.4 Warranty claims, which is reads as under:
“4.4-Warratny Claims: The motor will be repaired free of cost, if it were to go out of order due to inherent manufacturing defect within TWELVE (12) calendar moths from the of commissioning or EIGHTEEN (18) calendar months from the dispatch (from KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY) whichever is earlier at the termination of which period, all liability on their part ceases.
The warranty is subject to the conditions that no alteration addition or repair is made or attempted to be made to the motor. The motor should be sent for repairs freight paid”.
14. So viewing the above said warranty claims, the said Pulveriser 7.5 HP machine of the complainant is within the warranty period and also it is bounden duty of the 2nd OP to repair the said machine without insisting for labour and travelling charges from the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 and 2 in not repairing the said machine within the warranty period. Hence, it is just and proper to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to repair the said machine without taking any labour and travelling expenses from the complainant. The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant as general damages for mental agony and Rs.2,000=00 towards cost of litigation. According, the complaint is partly sustainable. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part.
The OP No.1 and 2 are directed to repair the Pulveriser 7.5 HP Machine without taking any labour and travelling expenses from the complainant, failing which, the OP No.1 and 2 shall replace the above said machine or to pay the cost of Pulveriser 7.5 HP Machine to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 and Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation respectively.
The complainant will cooperate with the OP No.1 and 2 to repair the said machine.
The complaint filed against the 3rd OP is here by dismissed without costs.
This order is to be complied by the OP No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 8th day of December 2016).
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
