BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 29/2000 Filed on 14.01.2000<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Rajan.S, SP/315, Kailas, Gandhipuram, Chavadimukku, Sreekariyam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 017.<br /> (By adv. Pachalloor B. Rajaraman Nair)<br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> Manager, Fashion Femina, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 011.<br /> <br /> (By adv. T.R. Asokan)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02.09.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 20.06.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A:MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> The facts as per the complainant are as follows: Complainant Mr. Rajan has purchased a 'Tulu Water Pump' for Rs. 1243/- from the opposite party's shop 'Fashion Femina' on 09.10.1991. For eight years he used it without any problem and on 09/1999 he approached the opposite party as some malfunctioning for the system was encountered. The opposite party assured the complainant that all the parts of pump excluding the body shall be replaced with company's original parts. He also assured the complainant that the pump will function as a new one if done like that. Agreeing this complainant gave Rs. 804/- and the pump set to the opposite party. But when the set was brought home after a month i.e; on 25.10.1999, the pump became faulty again. It was returned to opposite party and re-repair or return of Rs. 804/- paid was asked by the complainant. But the opposite party was not ready to give back the money and assured that they would contact the company. The complainant gave a written application for that, as requested by the opposite party for contacting the company. Even after a month there was no response. <br /> The abstract of the version filed by the opposite party is as follows: The opposite party was supplied with spare parts from U.P.National Manufcturer, Varanasi and he just assembled it with the aid of trained technicians. So the opposite party is not responsible for quality of spare parts instead it is the manufacturers. The damage might have been caused either due to the improper use by the complainant or by electrical fluctuation. The parts were repaired with original spare parts itself. It was assured that any similar complaint will be rectified free of labour cost if it occurs within a month. The opposite party was ready to do the repair if the cost of parts to be replaced will be paid at the second time the pump became faulty. And they also contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In this case the complainant has filed affidavit and produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The opposite party filed counter affidavit also. In this case as per the application filed by the complainant this Forum appointed Mr. Thomas A. Vadakkan, Engineer, KAL, Neyyattinkara as the commissioner and he has filed report. The report submitted by the commissioner is marked as Ext. C1. <br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The main allegation against the opposite party by the complainant is that when the pump was given for repair, the parts were not replaced by new ones, instead old ones were used. The complainant's demand is that the sum of Rs. 804/-he had paid for repair should be refunded along with compensation. <br /> <br /> The commissioner Mr. Thomas A. Vadakkan, Engineer, KAL was appointed to enquire whether the allegations raised by the complainant is true or not. As per the commission report, the commissioner inspected the motor by completely dismantling it. Only the field coil, carbon brushes and impeller were in working condition. Parts like armature, ball bearings etc. have to be replaced for the proper functioning of motor. Over all the motor was not found in a working condition. <br /> <br /> From this report, it can be concluded that the opposite party has not replaced the main parts like armature. As per Ext. P1 document, the cost for those parts which were not replaced were also billed to the complainant. By not replacing the parts and by making the complainant pay for the non-replaced parts, the opposite party has shown an unfair trade practice, cheating the complainant. Also the allegation of the opposite party that the motor might have been damaged by either electrical problems or mishandling or misuse can also be found a baseless one, since the same complainant had been using the motor for 8 years under same conditions.<br /> <br /> No proofs were adduced by the opposite party showing that the parts were supplied by U.P National Manufacturer, Varanasi. Hence, the argument raised by the opposite party, that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is not maintainable. With sufficient proofs, the complainant successfully proved his complaint. The documents produced by the complainant are : (i) Ext. P1 – bill issued by the opposite party for Rs. 804/-, (ii) Ext. P2-bill issued by opposite party at the time of purchase of motor. (iii) Ext. P3 receipt at the time of handling back of motor to opposite party. <br /> <br /> For the foregoing reasons, this Forum concludes that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed. <br /> In the result, opposite party should pay back Rs. 804/- which was paid by the complainant for repairing including interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 25.09.1999 till the date of payment. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 2500/- as costs of the complaint. Time for compliance two months.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 29/2000<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of receipt of Rs. 804/-(pump No. 189504)<br /> <br /> P2 - Photocopy of cash bill No. 338 dated 09.10.1999 for Rs. 1243/-. <br /> <br /> P3 - Photocopy of Bill No. 1619 dated 27.10.1999 of Pump No. 189504.<br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> V COURT EXHIBIT<br /> <br /> C1 - Commission Report <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />