D.O.F:07/10/2020
D.O.O:31/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.131/2020
Dated this, the 31st day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Nithinraj.A, aged 31 years,
S/o P. Kunhambu Nair,
Proprietor, Perfect Industries,
Vadakkekara, Periya, Post Periya. : Complainant
Kasaragod District – 671320.
(Adv: Kumaran Nair and Sabari.L.S)
And
- M/s Power Tech Engineering,
9-B, Janatha Nagar West
Sivanthapuram, Saravanampatty
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu -641035 : Opposite Parties
(Adv: C. Krishnakumar)
- M/s Best Engineering Co.
5/856 B C & D, Best Arena,
Near Sannidhan Tourist Home, Kannur – 670002
(Adv: Baburajan.N)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he is running a tile making unit, and it is the sole source of income for eaking livelihood. The complainant purchased two Vibra Designer tile making machines with 1.5 HP along with one Interlock cutter from opposite Party No:1 by paying Rs.1,32,160/-. At the time of purchase Opposite party No:1 assured one year replacement warranty for any manufacturing defect. The machines were installed by technicians of Opposite Party.
Further states that after one week of the erecting the both machines developed technical problem. The stand of the machines began to break and cracks developed. It was intimated to opposite Party No:2. As per the request of Opposite Party No:2 complainant contacted Opposite party No:1 they came to the unit of complainant and inspected the machineries, they tried to rectify the defects but failed to resolve the problems as defects were found to be of manufacturing defect. The fact reported to Opposite party No:1 and 2 by technician and recommended to replace the product. As per the advice of Opposite party No:1 the technician obtained original purchase bill and warranty card from complainant for replacement of the product. The complainant repeatedly contacted the opposite parties for replacement but opposite parties defrauded.
That the act of Opposite parties amounts gross negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant put to great financial loss hardship and mental agony for which claimed compensation and replacement of the defective tile making machine and by new defect free machine of the same make and quality or to refund the bill amount with interest and cost of the litigation.
The opposite party No:1 and 2 appeared and filed written version. As per opposite party No:1 complaint is not maintainable under law. The complainant suppressed the facts complainant has not made any payment to opposite Party No:1, and Opposite Party No: 1 not sent or dispatched any machine to the complainant. There is no privity to contract between Opposite Party No:1 and complainant. The Opposite party No:1 has no policy and practice that the product has never erect iits manufactured product to the customers. They only render direction to way of operating machines. The Opposite party No:1 never delivered the machines to complainant but on 09/07/2019 Opposite party No:1 delivered two machine to Opposite party No:2. The machine developed problem due to wrong erecting of the machine by complainant for which opposite party No:1 is not responsible. The machine is not erected in proper concrete platform. The defect is due to error committed by complainant not by Opposite Party No:1 and stated that there is no deficiency in service from opposite party No:1 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The Opposite Party No:2 admitted the purchase of the machine by complainant manufactured by Opposite Party No:1. The Opposite Party No:2 states that the machines were erected by the technicians of opposite party No:1. The Opposite Party No:2 has no role in the said process. The Opposite party No:2 admits that complainant reported the defects on receiving the complaint opposite party No:2 forwarded it to the Opposite party No:1. The opposite Party No:2 came to know that the defects were in manufacturing defects and it is not curable as set right and opposite party No:1 promised to replacement the machines to the complainant. Opposite party No:1 never promised to replace the machinery and Opposite Party No:2 is not liable to replace the machinery. There is no deficiency in service from Opposite party No:2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined by opposite party. The complainant filed Ext A1 to A4 documents and Ext C1 marked. The opposite parties not adduced any evidence.
Point for consideration in case were:
- Whether the product supplied by opposite party having any manufacturing defect?
- Whether complainant is entitled for the relief prayed in the complaint?
- If so for what reliefs?
All the issues taken for consideration together for conveniences:
The grievance of the complainant is that he has purchased two Vibra Designer tile making machines with 1.5 HP motor with one interlock cutter on 15/07/2019 from Opposite Party No:1 for Rs. 1,32,160/-. That within one week to the machine had technical problems, motor stand broken, cracks developed. The issue informed to opposite Party No:2. The Opposite Party No:2 could not resolve the problem and directed to conduct Opposite Party No: 1. The opposite Party No:1 sent technicians but they failed to cure the defects stating the machine having manufacturing defect. The Opposite party No:1 sent technicians but they failed to cure the defects stating the machine having manufacturing defect. The opposite party No:1 agreed to replace but not replaced.
Ext C1 reports the nature and extent of vibration of the machine, the machines suffering from crack, and it is also broken all due to the manufacturing defect. Expert conducted inspection. He noticed breaking of parts of vibration table Commissioner came to the conclusion that the machinery is beyond repairing. He also noticed another machine of 9mm size for which there is no defect and working promptly.
Expect denial opposite party No:1 and 2 did not produce any document nor adduced any oral evidence. Evidence on records indicating the report of Ext C1 that defects stated are noted by commissioner is not curable it is broken cannot be put to use and hence it is to be replaced. Being the product is of beyond repairs and requires replacement. The opposite Party No:1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to arrange replacement of the product. If it is not possible the price of the product is liable to pay with interest. Selling of defective product and failing to cure the defects amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for compensate the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing Opposite party No:1 and 2 to replace the defective machine with a new machine of same brand and quality without demanding any amount or in the alternative to refund its price collected Rs. 1,32,160/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of complaint till payment opposite Party No:1 and 2 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Tax invoice
A2- Lawyer Notice
A3- Reply notice issued by the OP No:1
A4- Reply Notice issued by the OP No:2
C1- Commission report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Nithinraj
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
