O R D E R
Sri. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
Complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act
for getting a relief against the opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows: The complainant purchased a Preethy Mixie Grinder on 22.09.2014 from the opposite party shop for an amount of Rs.6,486/-. When the complainant has taken the said grinder is his house and tried to operate it. At that time, heavy smoke comes out from the Mixie. So she continued could not continued to operate the Mixie. The complainant produced the said Mixie in the shop concerned and they returned to the Mixie and said that there is no defect seen in the Mixie. According to the complainant, when we again use the same the Mixie has represented the same defect as stated above with the noise. On the next day 24.09.2014 she approached the manager of the shop but that person blamed the complainant. At last, the Mixie produced the workshop of the same shop and the mechanical examined the Mixie and returned the same to the complainant. On the next day i.e. 25.09.2014 the same complaint occurred the Mixie and again the complainant contacted the opposite party and stated the incident again. The Mixie which is produced before the opposite party was kept for some times. On 04.10.2014 and 06.10.2014 the complainant enquired the defect of the material and it is known that certain mechanical defect was found and all these defects are rectified by the opposite party. Even though opposite party’s men informed these things apart from it they quick this opportunity to blame to the complainant. On 07.10.2014 they send this complaint to this Forum and as per the direction from the Forum they appeared before the Forum on 10.10.2014. According to the complainant, the complainant is filed before this Forum for replacing the Mixie with a new one for return of amount. The opposite party has not ready to fulfill the demand of the complainant hence he file this complaint. The complainant filed before this Forum on 20.10.2014 as per the Forum records.
3. In pursuance of the notice from this Forum the opposite party entered appearance and filed his version. The content of the opposite party’s version is stated below: According to the opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The address of the complainant stated in the complaint shows that the complainant purchased this Mixie and used the Mixie not for any domestic purpose but for the rough use of a group of people at the Salvation Army. The warranty card issued in favour of the complainant is very clearly mentioned that the Mixie is only for domestic purpose. This can be seen in instruction No.10. The Preethy Kitchen Pvt. Ltd. is the company which made this material. The company is not at all a party to the proceedings even though he is a necessary party. This opposite party is only a dealer of the company. As a dealer of the company the opposite party had given all the services to the complainant. The complainant person was given the Mixie to the shop on 29.09.2014 and the opposite party replaced the coupling of the Mixie on 30.09.2014 with the help of the company technician. According to the technician, the defect occurred was due to overload work of the Mixie for a long time and the Mixie was used carelessly without locking the jar properly. On 06.10.2014 the complainant enquire the Mixie through phone and on 09.10.2014 he was taken back the same. At the time of taking returning the Mixie after curing the defect the opposite party said to the complainant that if any kind of defect may arise hereafter they will send the technician in their house for necessary rectification. According to the opposite party, at the stage the complainant said that the Mixie is not using the house it is used for the purpose of Salvation Army. The opposite party told to the complainant that this Mixie is only for domestic purposes. At last, the complainant asked the opposite party to take back the Mixie and give him full refund so that he can buy a commercial Mixie from other shop. The opposite party pointed out that the complainant filed this case before this Forum so many days after receiving back the Mixie. The complainant has no right for any remedies asking the complainant. It is clear from the complainant that the Mixie was used for non domestic purpose.
4. This Forum examine the pleadings of both sides through the complaint and version we are raised the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
- If the complaint is maintainable what relief can be granted in favour of the complainant and regarding cost?
5. Point Nos.1 & 2:- For the sake of convenience we decided to consider all these points together. On the side of the complainant, the complainant’s wife Ruth George examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 and A2. For this purpose the complainant filed a petition to allow his wife to be examined instead of the complainant in this case. This petition is allowed, hence his wife was examined as PW1, as stated above. PW1 in her chief examination deposed moreover in terms of her complaint. The authorization letter issued by the complainant in favour of PW1 is marked as Ext.A1. The original bill of the said Mixie which is issued from the opposite party’s shop dated 22.09.2014 for an amount of Rs.6,486.05/- is marked as Ext.A2. The complainant has not adduced any more evidence except PW1’s deposition and Exts.A1 and A2. On the side of the opposite party he himself examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B1. The complainant’s wife cross-examined this DW1. This DW1 has not adduced any further evidence except his deposition and the Ext.B1. On the date of the examination of DW1, as a result of the previous direction of the Forum, the complainant’s wife produced the Mixie before the Forum. At that time, we directed the complainant’s wife to handover the Mixie for an examination to know the defect if any to the material. But it is surprised to say that though she produced the said Mixie before the Forum she was not ready to handover the same for technical examination.
6. In the light of the pleadings of both side and the deposition of both side the exhibits marked from both side we found the following points: It is very clear to say that the complainant’s complaint before this Forum is maintainable because he has purchased the Mixie from the opposite party and paid the amount to the opposite party. In order to prove it she produced Ext.A2 receipt. When we examine the complaint we can come to a conclusion that the said Mixie has got some mechanical defect. The next question to be considered is the defect of the Mixie was caused due to whose responsibility and the opposite party concerned entertain this defect or cure it? It is seen from the deposition that the complainant approached 3 times before the shop owner for redressing her grievances. At last on 09.10.2014 the Mixie handed over to the complainant after curing the defects. Both side accepted that now the Mixie in question is in the custody of the complainant, i.e. from 09.10.2014 onwards. At the same time, it is very interesting to see that the complaint filed by the complainant before the Forum it is stated that on 07.10.2014. According to the complainant he send this complaint to this Forum and as per the direction from the Forum on 10.10.2014 he appeared before the Forum and the end of the complaint he written the date of complaint as 13.10.2014. The case records of the Forum reveals that the complainant appeared this Forum on 20.10.2014 and on the same day his complaint has taken on file as C.C.No.141/2014 and on the same day notice issued for the appearance of the opposite party. The real facts are like this why the complainant falsely stated the wrongful contention in his complaint. When we read the complaint and the version it is also clear that as per the version, the opposite party contended that the complainant filed this complaint after receiving back the Mixie from the shop. The basic principle of law in a case is that “the plaintiff will come before the court of law with clean hand”. The approach of the complainant is deadly against the basic principle of law. It is evident to see that on 22.02.2015 when the complainant produce the Mixie before the Forum it was a good opportunity to the complainant to handover his Mixie to a technical expert. But this opportunity was also purposefully avoided by the complainant. This Forum understood that this complainant faced some kind of difficulties from the opposite party. But when an opportunity arises she did not utilize it for redressing her grievances. As per Sec.13(2) of C.P. Act it is the duty of the Forum to send the disputed material for technical report. Here the attitude of the complainant was not in favour of complying this direction.
7. In the result, the Point Nos. 2 and 3 found against the complainant. Hence the complaint is hereby dismissed. No order of cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of March, 2015.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – 1) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Major Ruth George
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Authorization letter dated 18.02.2015 issued by the
complainant in favour of PW1.
A2 : Bill dated 22.09.2014 for Rs.6,486.05/- issued by the
opposite party to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : R.G.K. Prasad
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Guarantee Card.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Major N.J. George, Divisional Commander,
Salvation Army, Divisional Head Quarters,
Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Mr. Saji Mathew. M.D., Vengal Crockery Appliances,
M.C. Road, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
