Orissa

Cuttak

CC/104/2021

Sumit Malakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,KSB Limited - Opp.Party(s)

K K Mohapatra & associates

23 Mar 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.104/2021

 

          Sumit Malakar,

          S/O: Sisir Kumar Malakiar,

          Resident of At/PO:414/A,RebaBagiecha,Kafla Bazar,

           Cuttack-753002.                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       KSB Limited,

Represented through it’s Principal Officer/

Managing Director,

Regd. Office At:Office No.601,Runawal,R-Square,

L.B.S Marg,Mulund, West Mumbai and the

Other office At:Plot No.E-3 & 4,Malegaon,MIDC,

               Nashik-422113,Maharastra

 

2.      Bholenath Electrical Spare Centre,

Authorised Dealer of KSB Ltd.,

                    At/Po Buxibazar,PS-Cantonment

                   Dist-Cuttack-753001,Odisha.                                                     ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    20.07.2021

Date of Order:  23.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. K.K.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :            Mr. A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that he had purchased oneSubmersible Water Pump of 1 H.P bearing no.CORA 1C/25 XUMA LX 100 AND KSB 1 PH PANEL BOX (GARDO 10) from the O.P no.2 on 27.4.2021 for a consideration of Rs.18,600/- which was installed at his house premises on 5.5.2021.  Due to certain problem, it developed electrical issue for which he was electrocuted many a times while operating the said water pump.  He had made complaint to that effect on 14.5.2021 to O.Ps no.1 & 2.  His complaint was registered bearing no.2105145S0381 dt.14.5.21.  A technician was deputed on 17.5.21 by the said O.Ps who uninstalled the said submersiblewater pump of the complainantand again when it was installed on 20.5.21, it did not work for which water could not be syphoned or lifted up.  So accordingly another complaint was registered by the complainant and when he ventilated his grievance he was rebuked by O.P no.1.  When the O.Ps were not in a  mood to resolve the issue even after getting notice to that effect, the complainant had to approach this Commission claiming the price of the said Water Pump to the tune of Rs.18,600/- alongwith installation, uninstallation and electric charges and transportation charges to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and also for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental harassment and further the complainant has also prayed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

          In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed several copies of documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version together wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands, rather had suppressed the material facts with an oblique motive for which the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.  They admit about the purchase of the submersible water pump by the complainant for a consideration of Rs.18,500/-.  They also admit about the complaint received from the complainant regarding the malfunctioning of the saidwater pump on 14.5.2021 which was repaired at the service centre of O.P no.1 to the satisfaction of the complainant.  According to them, the customer who purchases the submersible water pump is to bear the expenses and there is no guarantee for any free service as regards to the installation, uninstallation, cement works, electrical works and transportation.  They have also stated through their written version that the complainant had issued legal notice to them through his lawyer claiming damage to the tune of Rs.18,600/- towards the price of the purchase of submersible water pump, another sum of Rs.30,000/- towards installation, uninstallation, cement works, electrical works and transportation charges and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.  A reply was sent by O.P no.1 to the said legal notice of the complainant dt.28.5.2021.  According to them, the complainant is not entitled to the claims as made by him and rather the complaint petition deserves to be dismissed.

          Together with their written version they have filed copies of the legal notices in order to prove their stand.

          The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit which when perused, it is noticed that the same is only a reiteration of the complaint petition and nothing else.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.iI.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue for this case is taken up  first for consideration. 

After going through the complaint petition and the written version together with the copies of documents as available, it is noticed that the complainant together with his complaint petition has filed the tax invoice specifying the purchase of his submersible KSB 1 PH Water Pump on 27.4.2021 from the O.Ps for a price of Rs.18,600/-.  The complainant has also filed copy of the observation-cum-failure report of his said Water Pump vide Annexure-3.  He has filed copy of the legal notice as sent on his behalf to the O.Ps also.  Now, in order to establish deficiency on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant has to prove the same by filing adequate documents  in order to apprise this Commission in that aspect.  But quite strangely, no single document is filed from the side of complainant in order to apprise this Commission that the installation, uninstallation, cement work, electrical work and transportation of the purchasedsubmersible water pump by the complainant is free in all respect.  Thus, in absence of such document, this Commission cannot hold the O.Pswere deficient by charging from the complainant towards the installation, uninstallation, cement work, electrical work and transportation.  Moreso, as per Annexure-3 the submersible water pumpwhen complained to be having some problem, was duly repaired by the authorised service centre of the O.Ps.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in any manner from the side of any of theO.Ps in order to implicate them in this case as per the allegations raised by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^rd day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                       President

 

         

                                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                Member