By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The case of complainant in brief is as follows: Petitioner was an unemployed youth and was searching for a job for his livelihood. At that time the petitioner has seen an advertisement in Mathrubhoomi Newspaper stating that the respondent is introducing a power tiller with multipurpose. The respondent agency is located in Palakkad and the complainant has gone to the respondent agency and after enquiry decided to purchase one Power Tiller with accessories. He has availed loan from Federal Bank, Kallettumkara Branch and he paid Rs.1,27,850/- directly to the respondent company. The company has delivered the power tiller named Malson No.D 2136. Unfortunately within one week the vehicle became defective and the matter was reported to the respondent agency. The technicians of the respondent agency changed engine rings and gasket and oil and collected the entire charge including the labour charge and transporting charge from the petitioner. Even though the Tiller is guaranteed for one year, the technicians has collected all their expenses from the petitioner. Again the defect continued thrice within a duration of one week and repaired by the respondent company mens and collected charges for the same. After that when the machine again become struck and the matter was informed to the respondent agency and as per the direction of the respondent agency the Power Tiller was taken to the Branch Office at Potta Chalakkudy and the technicians from that place worked over the machine and changed almost all parts of engine and made to the petitioner believe that the vehicle is in a good working condition. The technicians from the respondents Chalakkudy Branch informed that connecting rode of the engine is defective and the defective parts were replaced on the petitioners cost. The defects to the machine occurred occasionally and on 16/11/2000 the respondent agency has taken the vehicle to the Palghat agency and returned after ten days. But due to the manufacturing defect and poor craftsmanship the Tiller was again defective and useless and could not be put to work. He has demanded replacement with new one but not done. It is learnt that the Power Tillers supplied by the respondent agency to various persons are of with the same complaint. The petitioner has caused loss of some amount which is mentioned in the petition. The Bank is initiating the proceedings against this petitioner to clear off the debt due to the Bank. Lawyer notice sent stating the defects incurred and reply received stating false allegations. But no remedy. Hence this complaint. The averments in the counter in brief is as follows: 2. The functioning of the machine was described to the complainant. The cost of Tiller stated in the complaint is not correct. Only Rs.1,05,000/- was received as cost of the Tiller and the remaining amount had returned to the complainant. The machine has got international quality and the working also described, but there was gross negligence on the part of complainant in the working of the Tiller. The machine is not intended for laterate stone cutting and can be used for this purpose only after complying some conditions. There is no guarantee for the defects caused due to stone cutting. The bills are issued only to show the servicing and no payment received by the respondent. The senior technicians of the respondent agency examined the tiller and found that it was used roughly with the ultimate motive of making profits. The Tiller has not any defects at the time of delivery. If any defects caused, it was only because of the negligent use of the Tiller. The respondent is not liable for the loss caused to the complainant. The averments in the reply notice are correct. The respondent is not liable for the loss arising out of the transactions with the Federal Bank. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are 1) Is there any deficiency in service ? 2) Is the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,27,850/- with 14% interest ? 3) Is the complainant is entitled for Rs.25,500/- as prayed ? 4) Other reliefs and costs ? 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P24 and Exhibits R1 to R6. 5. Point No.1: The definite case of the complainant is that the Power Tiller purchased by him from the respondent is not up to standard and can not be used for any purpose. According to the complainant within a week the vehicle reported defective and the matter was reported to the respondent and they changed engine rings and gasket and oil. Again the defect continued thrice with a duration of one week only because of the supplied Power Tiller was not up to the standard. The respondent did not deny this statements and it is clear that the machine was defective from the very beginning. The respondent contended that only due to the rough usage against the conditions specified the defects occurred. From the very beginning some parts were changed. The respondent alleged that the complainant had used the Tiller for cutting laterate stones that is against the condition specified and the petitioner has not mentioned for what purposes he had used the machine. In the counter it is stated that when the senior technician inspected the machine it was realized that the machine was used for cutting hard rocks. The complainant has not revealed the purposes for which he had used the machine. The operation manual contains the functions of the machine. Anyway it is proved that the machine had some problems and cured by change of parts and repair whether it was due to manufacturing defect or by the rough usage is not clearly established by any body. According to the petitioner the problems started within a week from the purchase. Respondent did not deny this point. So there is possibility of manufacturing defects. Hence the machine have one year warranty the respondent has no right to receive repair charge. It is the case of complainant that the bills are issued only to show the fact of servicing and no amount has received as per the bills. But this view cannot be believable . Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the repair charge and other expenses occurred during the warranty period. The deficiency in service on the part of respondent to that effect is proved and found against the respondent. 6.Point No.2 The 2nd point to be considered is whether the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.1,27,850/-. According to the complainant he has paid Rs.1,27,850/- to the respondent as cost of the machine. He has stated that loan is taken from Federal Bank for Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance collected from other sources. Exhibit R4 is a letter written by the complainant to the respondent. As per Exhibit R4 the complainant had accepted Rs.21,936/- out of Rs.1,27,850/-. This facts had suppressed by the complainant and he has not disputed this letter. So the version taken by the complainant is false and simply lied before the Forum. So he is not entitled for the amount sought. Moreover that machine had sold by him to third party and as per Exhibit R1 that party is using the Tiller from 18/4/04 onwards. From that document it is clear that the machine had transferred to another person and the complainant is not the present owner. So he is not entitled to get back the cost of the machine. He clearly lied before the Forum regarding the price of the machine. The balance amount accepted by the complainant had concealed from the Forum. So the genuineness of case itself is suspected. The balance amount had received by the complainant and this fact had suppressed. He also handed over the machine to one Jaminisan and still stick on the entire price of the machine. Hence he is not entitled for the amount and this point is found against the complainant. 7.Point No.3 The third point is regarding the damages. Some bills are produced by the complainant and marked as various Exhibits. The machine had purchased on 11/8/2000 and the warranty period is one year. So the complainant is entitled to get free service for one year. After that he has to pay. The contention of the respondent is that the bills are issued only to show servicing but the charges were not received. But this cannot be accepted. We are treating the bills as paid. But the complainant is entitled to get back the bill amount during the warranty period only. In some bills there is no name of customer, and no date. In Exhibit P22 series the second bill is dated 20/4/00, this is before the purchase of the Tiller. So here also the complainant tried to play a foul drama. He is entitled for Rs.28,650/- only in this aspect. There is service deficiency on the part of respondent and the respondent is liable to compensate it. After the purchase, within a week the Tiller became defective and unnecessary loss and mental agony caused to the complainant. There is deficiency on the part of complainant also and the point is discussed above. So the complainant is entitled for a nominal compensation. But the petitioner also stated that due to the defect of the supplied Power Tiller the petitioner is not in a position to carry out the work undertaken and suffer huge loss and in a difficult position to pay the bank loan. But the respondent cannot be made liable to pay the bank arrears. A reasonable compensation for the service deficiency can be taken into consideration. Taking into account all the circumstances we are inclined to award Rs.10,000/- as compensation . 8. In the result complaint is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 28,650/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) as the bill amount and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 18th day of September 2008.
