KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.509/02 JUDGMENT DATED.13.06.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Proprietor, Vijaya Engineering Company, PB No.1058, Pattom Palace.P.O, : APPELLANT Thiruvananthapuram-695004. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura) Vs M.Nishad, Nazeer Manzil, Kochalumoodu, : RESPONDENT Pangode.P.O.PangodeVillage. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.25.6.02 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.661/99. The complaint in the aforesaid OP was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,153.65Ps with interest at 14.5% along with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant wanted to purchase a Kirloskar Pump for irrigation purpose. But Kirloskar Pump was not available with the opposite party and the complainant was persuaded by the opposite party to buy Greaves pump. But the pump was not working properly and the complainant approached the opposite party and he replaced it. That replaced pump also became defective within a short period. The complainant requested the opposite party to replace the defective pump with a new one. But the opposite party failed to comply with the aforesaid request made by the complainant. Hence the complaint in OP.No.661/99. 3. At the instance of the complainant an expert was appointed to inspect the pump and for submitting a report. Thereby Mr.C.Bhaskaran Nair was appointed as an expert commissioner and he submitted his report. The aforesaid report was marked as Ext.C1. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, CW1; Exts.P1 to P4; Exts.D1 to D7 and Ext.C1. 5. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant argued his case on the basis of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. He challenged the correctness of the order passed by the lower forum. The appellant has also raised the contention that they are only the dealers and the manufacturing company is to be arrayed as party in the said OP. The case of the appellant is that the pump became defective only on account of mishandling. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the lower forum. The grievance of the respondent/complainant is that soon after the purchase the pump became defective. He relied on Ext.C1 report and submitted that the defects noted in the working of the pump were major defects and required frequent repairs and adjustments, which could only be done by a technical hand. The complainant/respondent requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 7. The complainant purchased the pump on 22.12.99 and it is evidenced by Ext.P2 bill dated.22.12.99 issued by the Vijaya Engineering Company. The aforesaid bill would show that the complainant purchased the pump for Rs.12,153.65Ps. It could be seen from the Ext.C1 report that the said pump developed problems and so many defects from the very beginning. The pump does not have the qualities offered by the opposite party. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the pump is not functioning properly. It is to be noted that there is nothing on record to infer any omission or laches on the part of the complainant. The proper remedy to remove the hardship which are being suffered by the complainant is to direct the opposite party to refund the price of the pump. 8. The pump was purchased on 22.12.99 and developed trouble during the warranty period. During the warranty period the opposite party had to effect the repair or replacement without demanding any sort of charge. But they did not do so. Thus, there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant used the pump for quite some time and is in the possession of the complainant till now and so the order of the forum directing the opposite party to pay the entire price of the pump cannot be upheld as such. The question of depreciation has also to be considered. 9. Considering all these aspects the refund of Rs.12,153.65Ps ordered by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.7,500/-. The Forum below has ordered interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum. We are of the view that the rate of interest at the rate of 14.5% ordered by the Forum is on the higher side. Considering the rate of interest prevailed at the relevant time the interest at 12% can be treated as reasonable and fair. So the rate of interest at 14.5% is reduced to 12%. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and impugned order passed by the lower forum is modified, thereby the order of the forum directing to pay a sum of Rs.12,153.65ps is reduced to Rs.7,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order of the lower forum. The order regarding the payment of Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant is set aside and the direction to pay cost of Rs.2000/- is upheld. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
