Smt.PREETHAKUMARI. K.P.<br /> This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to cure the defects of a Macoen pumpset with compensation and cost.<br /> As per the averment in the complaint, the complainant had bought a Macoen pumpset from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs 2300/- on 5.3.2005 with one year warranty. Because of summer season, he started to use the pumpset only in June and the same became defective within one month’s use itself. He had given the pumpset to the opposite party’s institution for repair . As per the instruction of opposite party he had went to the opposite party’s shop for the repaird pumpset, the opposite party demanded RS 700/- as repaired charge. But the complainant refusd to give the same since the pumpset has one year guarantee and it became defective within that period. But the opposite party was reluctant to return back the pumpset because of non receipt of repairing charge and hence the complainant returnd without the pumpset. According to the complainant the opposite party had cheated him by giving a substandard pumpset and demanding Rs 700/- as the repairing charge during the warranty period amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. So he had given a complaint before the Consumer Organization NOCER India on 29.7.2005. But the grievance of the complainant has not redressed. Because of this the complainant had filed this complaint.<br /> After notice the opposite party appeared and filed version through Adv. P.Ajayakumar. According to him the complainant is not a consumer since he had not purchasd anything from the opposite party’s shop. He again contended that he had filed the version because his name was shown as opposite party, that his institution is not engaged in making and selling pumpsets, that the institution by name High Tech , Kandoth , Payyannur is selling the same. If anyone had purchased pumpsets from the above said High Tech, they were used to give bill and warranty card, and hence if the motor had any defects within one year from the date of purchase , it will be cured or replaced by them as per the nature of defects. In the warranty it is stated that the winding do not contact with water and pumpset should not run below 160V and do not service the motor by unauthorized persons. But the complainant repaired the motor with some other against the warranty conditions. Moreover the complainant had not produced any bill or document to show that it is purchased from his shop. He further says that the motor was made by Induction Electronics , Kandoth , Payyannur and marketed by High Tech and this information was inferred by him from the plate of motor. So many persons were purchased the motor from “High Tech” on 5.3.2005 and the motor which was brought before him for repair is purchased by somebody other than the complainant. Moreover the winding of the motor had in contact with water and hence the insulated copper were already became defective. It was informed to the complainant at the time when he had brought the motor, that the opposite party will repair the motor by giving the repairing charge by the complainant. Thereafter he had not turned up. Later the opposite party had received a notice from NOCER India and replied the same. He further contended that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is the duty of the complainant to safeguard the motor from water or rain. He further adds that if the complainant is ready to give Rs 600/- as the value of the parts intended to be replaced, the opposite party is ready to repair the same even now. The opposite party’s firm is a reputed one and the complaint was filed with an intention to destroy its goodwill etc. So the complaint may be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?<br /> 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 3. Relief and cost.<br /> 4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1,DW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 and B1.<br /> ISSUE No.1.<br /> The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a pumpset from the opposite party and it became defective within the warranty period itself and on repair the opposite party demanded the repairing charge. He had produced Ext. A1 which along with the testimony of PW1 shows that he had purchased the pumpset from the opposite party. It is the usual practice of some sellers that write the value of the goods purchased on a piece of paper and give it to the consumers instead of bill, who are seems to be an illiterate. Moreover the opposite party deposed that the motor is manufactured by Induction Electronics, Kandoth , Payyannur and marketed by High Tech, Payyannur. He further deposed that High Tech Kandoth is owned by his wife and he is a partner of Induction Electricals, Kandoth and he is the owner of opposite party institution. Further it can be seen that the opposite party is manufacturing electric motors, pumps, manual automatic voltage stabilizers and all kinds of transformers. This is evident from the documents produced. So all these above mentioned institutions are interconnectd and thus the complainant’s averment that he had purchased the motor from opposite party can be believed. Morover the opposite party contended that the motor became defective because the winding of the motor were contacted with water and for such defect the opposite party is not liable. But he had not taken any steps to prove his contention. So from all the available evidence it can be seen that the complainant had purchased the motor from the opposite party and hence the complainant is the consumer of opposite party and issue no.1 is answerd accordingly.<br /> It is admitted that the opposite party had demanded Rs 700/- as repair charge even at the validity period of warranty. This itself is a deficient service. The opposite party had not taken any steps to prove that the defects of the motor is due to contact with water. So it can be seen that the opposite party had cheated the complainant by giving defective motor which amounts to unfair trade practice. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the motor curing the defects free of cost with Rs 1000/-as compensation and Rs 500/- as cost of this proceedings. So the issues are answered in favour of the complainant. <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to cure the defects of the motor free of cost with Rs 1000/-( RS one thousand only) as compensation and Rs 500/- ( Rs five hundred only) as the cost of this proceedings, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Bill dt. 5.3.2005 issued by the opposite party<br /> A2. Warranty card <br /> A3. Notice dt. 29.7.2005 sent by Nocer India.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party<br /> B1. Bill issued by the opposite part y dt. 5.3.2005<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant <br /> Witness examined for the opposite party<br /> DW1. S,E.Krishnan Namboodiri.<br /> Forwarded/by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT <br /> <br />