O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 30..7..2009 is as follows: Petitioner is an agriculturist. First opposite party is the authorized dealer, second opposite party is the distributor and 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of ‘Ocean’ water storage tanks. Petitioner purchased a ‘Ocean’ water tank having capacity of 30000 Ltrs. from the 1st opposite party on 18..1..2008, as per bill No. 9887, paying Rs. 11250/-. At the time of purchase the first opposite party made the petitioner believe that the said water tank was guaranteed against all -2- manufacturing defect for a period of 10 years from the date of purchase. In case of any defect, the water tank will be repaired / replaced through the nearest dealer. According to the petitioner he had followed all the instructions in the guarantee card, for installation and use of the said water tank. But about one month, after the date of purchase, the tank started showing leakage. Petitioner informed the first opposite party, they examined and repaired the same. Petitioner was also assured that in the event of any further leakage the tank will be replaced by a new one. But, again after 3 months of repairing, the tank showed multiple and heavy leakage. Petitioner again approached the 1st opposite party but they did not care to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Petitioner on 21..5..2009 issued a lawyer’s notice to the opposite parties demanding them to replace of the water tank . 1st and 2nd opposite party received the notice. Notice of 3rd opposite party returned un served with endorsement ‘no such addressee’. On 3..7..2009 petitioner received a reply notice jointly sent by opposite parties 2 and 3 stating untenable contentions. Petitioner states that on discrete enquiry by the petitioner, it is learnt that though the tanks are claimed to be of export quality , no such certification is available for the 3rd opposite party. Further the 3rd opposite party is not holding an ISI certification which is a mandatory for export of such tanks. Moreover the petitioner , despite through enquiry, could not find out a registered functioning manufacturing facility for the 3rd opposite party. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, the petitioner prays for a direction to replace the defective water tanks by brand new one of similar description or in the alternative opposite parties may by directed to pay an amount of Rs. 11250/- with 12% per annum from 18..1..2008 till realization. They claims Rs. 25,000/- for the loss and mental agony along with cost of the proceedings. Notices were sent to the opposite party. Notice of opposite party 1 and 2 served. Opposite party 1 & 2 absent and set ex-parte. Notice of Opposite party 3. returned as “no such addressee”. Petitioner filed I.A 449/10 for declaring that -3- notice of 3rd opposite party was served . I.A allowed and 3rd opposite party was set ex-parte. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced the guarantee card issued by the opposite party said document is marked as Ext. A2. Opposite party assures 10 years guarantee. From the affidavit filed by the petitioner it can be seen that the defects were noticed to the water tank during the guarantee period. Lawyer’s notice issued by the petitioner to the opposite party is produced and same is marked as Ext. A3. The reply notice issued by the opposite party dtd: 22..6..2009 produced is marked as Ext. A8. From Ext. A8 it can be seen that the lawyer’s notice was received by the opposite party. The non replacement of the defective water tank even after demand by the petitioner is a clear deficiency in service. Further more selling water tanks not holding ISA certification and manufacturing a products without a registered functioning is an unfair trade practice . So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result opposite party is jointly and severally liable to refund the amount give by the petitioner for the purchase of the tank. So, opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 11250/- with 12% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. -4- Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party can take back the defective tank after complying the order. The order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 18..1..2008 Ext. A2: Guarantee card Dtd: 18..1..2008 Ext. A3: Office copy of the lawyer’s notice dtd: 21..5..2009 Ext. A4: Postal receipts Ext. A5: Acknowledgement card Dtd: 28..5..2009 Ext. A6: AD card Dtd: 29..5..2009 Ext. A7: Un served letter issued by the petitioner to the 3rd opposite party Ext. A8: Reply notice Dtd: 22..6..2009 Document for the opposite party Nil. By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
