IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

 Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 302/2013

Friday the 28^th day of April, 2017

Complainant                                     :        Chirakkadavu Sree Mahadeva

                                                                   Seva Sangam, Chirakkadavu

                                                                   Centre,  Kottayam District

                                                                   Reptd. By its Secretary,

                                                                   N. Somasekharan Pillai,

                                                                   Mulavelil (Ushus)

                                                                   Chirakkadavu Center P.O,

                                                                   Kottayam -  686 519              

                                                                   (Adv. C.N. Rajasekharan Nair)

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                               :  1)   M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engineers Ltd.,

                                                                   Laxman Rao Kirloskar Road,

                                                                   Khadki, Pune – 411 033.

                                                                   (Adv. Muhammed Nizar)

                                                             2)   M/s. N.K. Poduval & Co.,

                                                                   IX/543 Pukadiyil Building,

                                                                   Sastri Road, Kottayam-686 001.

                                                                   (Adv. Sheeba Tharakan)

                                                             3)   Praveen,

                                                                   Authorised Service Dealer,

                                                                   Girideepam School Road,

                                                                   M/s. Vibrant Power Services,

                                                                   Kalathipady(As per Order on IA-

                                                                   293/14 3^rd OP impleaded)

                                                                   (Adv. Muhammed Nizar)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

The case of the complainant filed on 07/11/13 is as follows.

The complainant  purchased a diesel Generator manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party the dealer for Rs, 2,45,000/-, it was installed and commissioned on  20/08/12 by the technicians of the 1^st and  2^nd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is the  authorised service centre.  According to the complainant within short period the generator showed  serious defect ie., sudden stoppage while on running.  The mechanics  of the opposite parties attended and repaired the generator set on  several times.  But even after several  repairs the problem remained unresolved. The generator set is not functioning from 04/07/13.  It was worked only for a  period of about 4 months.   Then the complainant on 20/06/13 issued a notice to the opposite party 1 & 2  demanding  replacement of the generator set.  Even after  accepting the same they have neither replied nor replaced the generator set.  According to the complainant the generator is having 18 months warranty and the defect is within warranty period.  And the above said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice .  Hence this complaint.

1^st opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable.  According to them the  1^st  service check was done on 31/08/12 and by that time  the generator set was used for 2 hours.  The second service check up was done on 16/11/12 after running the same for  28.9 hours.  Neither any complaint was reported by the complainant nor any defect was found at the time of  checkups.  Then on 17/12/12 the complainant raised 1^st complaint to the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party and on the same day itself it was attended by the service persons and certain timing irregularities were found, which were rectified.  Till 01/04/13 the said generator set was used  for total 142 hours.  Thereafter on 27/06/13 the same complaint was raised through the 2^nd opposite party.  During the inspection it was found  that the said generator set was used for  179 hours.  So the settings were required  and the same was done.  The load test was also  carried out and found correct.  As  the secretary of the complainant wanted to see and  monitor the performance of the generator, after one week the service  person again visited the said premises and inspected the generator again  on 07/07/13 after its use of total  184.3 hours.  And there were no irregularities found in the said generator.  The complainant was using the said generator set initially for their temple renovation purpose and hence the running hours were on a  higher side.  Subsequently they were used the same only as a stand by application  to cover up the power interruption. According to the 1^st opposite party the generator set was good and properly working as per its standards.  Only necessary service for correcting the timing functions of the same was done to it.  And there was no manufacturing defect.  1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2^nd opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable.  According to the 1^st opposite party on 20/08/12 they had supplied 10 KVA diesel generator to the complainant and the complainant install the generator set with the help of their own electrical contractor.  After  the installation is completed the 2^nd opposite party done the supervision  of commissioning of the generator.  Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party send the commissioning report to the 1^st opposite party and the communication goes to the authorised service centre of the 1^st  opposite party, who thereafter is fully responsible for the service of the generator set.  The 2^nd opposite party is in no way  involved directly with the customer for the after sale service of the generator set.  In the event of any manufacturing defect or malfunction of the generator set, the  authorised service dealer has to give their report to the 1^st opposite party and it is the responsibility of the  1^st opposite party to replace the set if any manufacturing defect is reported by the authorised service dealer.  According  to the 2^nd opposite party, the authorised service contractor of the 1^st opposite party was done  proper service in time and  the complaints reported by the  complainant were attended properly.  The generator set had run for  184.3 hours, within short period and there is no manufacturing defect or any other defects.  According to the 2^nd opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice  on the part of  them and they also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

The additional 3^rd opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable.  According to the 3^rd opposite party, on 31/08/12  they had done 1^st service checkup, that time the generator set was used for two hours.  The second service check up was done on 16/11/12 after  running the said generator for 28.9 hours.  Neither any complaint was reported nor was any defect found  at the time of check ups.    Then on 17/12/12 the complainant raised  their  1^st  complaint through the 2^nd opposite party and on the same day itself it was attended and done the  service for rectifying the timing irregularities.  Again on 08/02/13, 13/03/13 and on  01/04/13 the service person of the 3^rd opposite party was attended the complaints and corrected the RPM to avoid the sudden stoppage of the said generator.  Till 01/04/13 the said generator was used for total 142 hours.  Thereafter on 27/06/13 the service person of the additional 3^rd opposite party inspected the said generator set.  During the inspection it was found that the said generator set was used for 179 hours.  So the settings were required and the same was done by the service persons and carried out the load tests.  The said generator set was under observation of the said service person after the said service, since the secretary of the complainant  wanted to see and monitor  the performance of the said generator for one week to his satisfaction, before  signing the report.  Even though there was no complaints, as requested by the secretary of the complainant it was under observation.  So the said service persons again visited the said premises after one week and inspected the generator set again on 04/07/13, after its use of total 184.3 hours and not found any defect.  There after Additional 3^rd opposite party has not received any complaint directly or through the other opposite parties.  The statement of the complainant that the generator set is not functioning  from 04/07/17 and that the generator set worked only for a short period  of about four months is false.  There is  no  defect to the said generator and so for the complainant has not raised any complaint for the alleged defect.  They had done only necessary service for correcting the  timing functions,  since the said generator was good and properly working as  per its standard, there was no occasion  to repair it.  The 3^rd opposite party has not received  any notice for the replacement of the generator set.  But on receipt of the intimation of this case as instructed  by the 1^st opposite party the additional 3^rd opposite party approached the complainant for  verifying  the alleged defect to the said generator set on  30/11/13.  But the complainant did not allow to inspect the generator stating that this case is pending.  The complainant  was using the said generator set initially for their temple renovation  purpose and hence the running hours were on the higher side.  Subsequently they were using only as a stand by application to cover up the power interruption.  Since the  service persons  were not allowed to inspect the generator  set on 30/11/13 they did not get  any opportunity to check whether there is any settings   change in the panel board.  It is alleged that the complainant is not using the generator set for last  several months.  In such a situation there is every chance to loose the charge of the battery or damaged the same.  According to the 3^rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and they also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Points for considerations are:

1)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

2)      Relief and cost.

          Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavits of both sides and the depositions of the PW1, PW2 and DW1.  And Ext. A1 to A6 documents, C1 Commission report and Ext. B1 to B8 documents.

Point No. 1

Gist of the complainants case is that the diesel  generator set purchased from the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant manufactured by the 1^st opposite party is having serious  manufacturing defects.  So complainant seek direction of Fora  to replace the same.  Opposite parties contented that the generator, when set it run for short period and thereafter, began to show sudden stoppage while running is false.  According  to the opposite parties on all service check up it is seen that  the set was used for long  hours.  Service details of the defective generator is produced and the same were marked as Ext. B1 to B8.  The details of services are as follows.

According to opposite parties the diesel  generator  set is not defective, only necessary service for correcting time function is to be done to the generator.  They further stated that the complainant were using the generator set initially for their temple renovation.  So much so the running hours were on higher side.  Subsequently the generator is used as stand by application to cover power interruption.

In order to prove manufacturing defect complainant taken a commissioner.  Commissioner filed C1 report.  Commissioner was examined as Pw1.  From Ext. B1 to B8 documents it can be seen that there was some minor defects  to the  generator and the same were cured by correcting time functioning.  Since there is no evidence of any manufacturing defect we cannot direct the opposite party to replace the generator set.   PW1, expert Commissioner, opined that present complaint can be rectified by replacing the control panel and also rectify the fault on the  diesel  guage and load current.   So we are of the opinion that, it is genuine and we direct  the opposite party to rectify the defects by replacing the  control panel and rectify the fault on the diesel guage and load current measuring meter.     So point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

          In view of finding in point No. 1, complaint is allowed.

In the result:

1)      Opposite parties are ordered to repair the complainants diesel generator in proper working condition.

2)      Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 3,000/- as the cost of this litigation to the complainant.

The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the

 date of receipt of copy order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the28^thday ofApril ,2017.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

Documents for the petitioner:

Ext. A1: Letter Dtd: 17/06/12

Ext. A2: Retail Invoice Dt: 30/06/12

Ext. A3:Service/Commissioning report (6 Nos.)

Ext. A4:Copy of Regd. Notice. Dtd: 20/06/13

Ext. A5:Postal Receipt

Ext. A6:Warranty certificate and manual.

Witness from the side of petition:

Documents for the opposite parties

Ext. B1: Service report Dtd: 31/08/2012

Ext. B2: Service report Dtd: 16/11/12

Ext. B3: Service report Dtd:        17/12/12

Ext. B4: Service report Dtd: 08/02/13

Ext. B5: Service Report Dtd:  13/03/13

Ext. B6: Service report Dtd: 01/04/13

Ext. B7: Service report Dtd: 27/06/13

Ext. B8: Service report Dtd: 04/07/13

Witness from the side of opposite party: 

DW1:     Praveenkumar V.P

C1:         Commission Report

                                                                           By Order,

Senior Superintendent