Kerala

Malappuram

CC/27/2020

VIJAYAKUMAR P - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
MALAPPURAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/27/2020
( Date of Filing : 10 Feb 2020 )
 
1. VIJAYAKUMAR P
CHITHRAS MARATTAPADI POPANDIKAD ERNAD TALUK 676521
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. MANAGER
BIOTECH RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD NORTH PIPELINE ROAD THONDAYAD CHEVARAMBALAM PO KOZHIKODE 673017
2. MANAGER
BIOTECH RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD MP APPAN ROAD VAZHUTHAKKAD THAIKKAD PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 650014
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 25 Oct 2022
Final Order / Judgement

By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-

1.         According to the complainant, after being noticed the advertisement of biogas plant, he approached the first opposite party to purchase the same. Later the    representatives of the first opposite party came to his residence and explained about the quality, specialty and services of the product.  They also convinced the complainant about the nature of the function   and benefit of the product.  So the complainant purchased and   paid Rs.19,000/- as the cost of the product  and also spent Rs.6,000/- as the installation charge to the first opposite party in the month of November 2018.  The opposite parties also assured that the biogas plaint would provide organic fertilizer to the complainant.  But after two days of installation the plant was found not working and issue was raised before the opposite party and requested for proper service.  On the following day the first opposite party came to the spot and rectified the defect   and convinced the complainant   that no scope for same defect in the future.  But on the very next day, same defect was occurred and working of the plant was halted.  Then the complainant again contacted the opposite parties and they assured of service for rectifying the defect.  According to the complainant the opposite parties were not rectified the defect of the biogas plant so far.   The complainant continuously contacted the opposite parties, but they did not turn up and no services were done as guaranteed by the opposite parties at the time of installation of the plant.  The first opposite party did not attend the telephone calls of the complainant.  So the complainant informed the second opposite party about the issue but no steps were taken to rectify the defect .It is stated in the complaint that the opposite parties were installed faulty product. Due to the irresponsibility on the part of the opposite parties the complainant suffered huge loss, mental agony and hardship. The opposite parties were dishonestly induced and deceived the complainant and thereby made unlawful profit after selling out of a defective product.   The complainant lost interest on the biogas plant installed by the opposite parties.   It is stated in the complaint that in reply to the notice sent by the complainant, the opposite parties were assured   to rectify the defect of the plant but did not turn up so far.   There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  So the complainant contended that he is deserving for compensation from the opposite parties. The complainant prayed for an order to pay  Rs.25,000/- as the  total cost of the installation of the biogas plant from the opposite parties and  demanded Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the  mental agony and hardship  due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.   The complainant also prayed for an order of Rs.10,000/- as  cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties.

2.         The complaint was admitted in file and issued notices to the opposite parties .   The opposite parties were entered on appearance and filed their version.

3.         In the version the opposite parties admitted that the second opposite party was conducting the manufacture and sale of the biogas plants for more than 25 years. It is admitted that on 02/11/2018 the opposite parties installed a biogas plant at the residence of the complainant after receiving payment of Rs.19,000/- . According to the opposite party the defect was occurred to the plant due to exorbitant   deposit of waste in the   inlet of the plant which resulted in the blocking of the function and the said defect was rectified on 20/12/2018.  Thereafter no complaint was received from the side of the complainant regarding the function of biogas plant until notice dated 10/04/2019 was received.   After receiving the notice from the complainant a reply was sent on 20/04/2019 by the opposite parties expressing their  willingness to rectify the defect occurred to the biogas plant.   But the complainant stated that he want to re-imbruse the expenses incurred for the installation of the plant instead of rectification of the defect.  It was stated in the version that the proposal of reimbursement from the side of the complainant was denied by the opposite parties.  On 09/08/2019 the opposite parties were sent another letter to the complainant expressing their readiness to repair the defect of the plant.  But the complainant did not turned up.   So the opposite parties could not rectify the defect due the lack of permission from the side of the complainant.   In the ordinary course of business the biogas plants are installed after   defect free inspection by the expert technicians of the opposite parties and the plant installed at the residence of the complainant was thoroughly inspected by adopting defect free inspection. In the version, the opposite parties are again repeated their readiness to rectify the defect of the biogas plant.

4.         The complainant filed affidavit and also produced document.  The document produced from the side of the complainant was marked as Ext. A1 to A4.  Ext. A1 document is the copy of bill dated 20/11/2019 issued by the first opposite party at the time of purchase of the biogas plant by the complainant.  Ext. A2 document is the copy of user’s manual of the biogas plant issued by the first opposite party.  Ext. A3 document is the copy of lawyer notice dated 10/04/2019 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext. A4 document is the copy of reply notice dated 09/08/2019 expressing the readiness of the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the biogas plant.

5.         On 01/04/2022 the complainant filed affidavit and documents were marked. Thereafter the case posted to 13/05/2022 for the affidavit of the opposite parties.  But on 13/05/2022 the opposite parties were absent and no affidavit was filed on that day.  The case was posted to 22/06/2022 for hearing.  On 22/06/2022 the opposite parties were again absent and case again posted to 01/09/2022.  On 01/09/2022 the opposite parties were absent before the Commission.  The complainant’s side was heard and complainant filed argument notes also.  The document produced along with the version cannot be marked in the absence of the affidavit. So Commission finds that there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  

6.         The complainant heard in detail. Perused affidavit and documents.  The points arised for the consideration of Commission as follows:-

  1. Whether the opposite parties were committed deficiency in service towards the complainant?
  2. The relief and costs.

 7.        It is contended in the complaint that the complainant purchased and installed a biogas plant from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party.  In order to prove the purchase of the biogas plant, the complainant produced Ext. A1 document.  But after two days of installation of the plant it was found not working and issue was raised before the first opposite party.  The first opposite party came to the spot and rectified the alleged defect. But even after the rectification, on the very next day the functioning was halted and defect was again found in the plant.  So the complainant approached both the opposite parties but no action was taken to rectify the defect. From the evidences adduced by the complainant it can be seen that the bio gas plant was defective one and no action was taken by the opposite parties to rectify the defect.  Moreover, after sending of Ext. A3 lawyer notice the opposite parties have under taken to rectify the defect. This fact was evident from Ext. A4 reply notice sent by the opposite parties to the complainant’s Advocate. Now the un useful biogas plant was kept in the residential premises for a long period without serving any purposes. There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties. So this commission finds that the opposite parties are committed negligence towards the complainant and them jointly and severally liable for the same and so   allow the complaint as follows:-

1) The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as the total cost of the bio gas plant.

    2) The opposite parties shall also directed to remove the biogas plant as of present condition from the residential premises of the complainant after bearing the entire expenses of dislocation of the plant.

3) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due the negligent act of the opposite parties.

  1. The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  

The opposite parties shall  comply this order within one month from the date of receipt  of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall bear 9%  interest per annum till realization .

Dated this 25th   day of October , 2022.

 

Mohandasan  K., President

PreethiSivaraman C., Member

     Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A4

Ext.A1: document  is the copy of bill dated 20/11/2019 issued by the first opposite

party at the time of purchase of the biogas plant by the complainant.

Ext.A2: document is the copy of users manual of the biogas plant issued by the first 

opposite party.

Ext A3: document is the copy of lawyer notice dated 10/04/2019 issued by the

complainant to the opposite parties.

Ext A4: document is the copy of reply notice dated 09/08/2019 expressing the

readiness of the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the biogas plant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

 

 

 

Mohandasan  K., President

PreethiSivaraman C., Member

     Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

VPH

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K]
PRESIDENT
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.