Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/82/2021

S. Periyasamy Reddy (Deceased) - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shanthi Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. P. RATHANAVEL

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :      Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

                   Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                           MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.82/2021

(Against order in CC.NO.22/2003 on the file of the DCDRC, Vellore)

 

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

S. Periyasamy Reddy (Deceased)

Rep. by his son Legal representative P.Ravi

R.J.Kandigai Village

Balapuram Village                                                M/s. P.Rathanavel                            

Balapuram Post, Pallipattu Taluk                                  Counsel for

Thiruvallur District                                             Appellant / Complainant

 

                                                         Vs.

 

M/s. Shanthi Electricals

Rep. by its Proprietor B.Ganapath Raj

No.33, Bazaar Street                                           M/s. T.K.S.Gandhi

Sholinghur- 631 106                                               Counsel for

Vellore District                                                Respondent/Opposite Party

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint in part. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to enhance the compensation awarded as per order of the District Commission dt.5.3.2020 in CC.No.22/2003.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.12.2022, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.        Having been not satisfied with the order dt.5.3.2020 passed by the District Commission, Vellore, in CC.No.22/2003 by partly allowing the complaint, this appeal is filed by the Appellant/complainant herein, praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Commission. 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 

 3.      The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

 On the advise of the opposite party, the deceased complainant alongwith his son had purchased Texmo 7.5 HP Electric Motor for a sum of Rs.20,890/- and    Ranga Texvel starter for a sum of Rs.1758/- on 9.5.2002 from the opposite party to draw water from borewell.  Though the opposite party had issued invoice for the purchase of the motor they had not issued bill.  The complainant installed the motor which started functioning at the site of the borewell.  Though the said motor was functioning initially, within a period of two months, the starter failed to function and it went out of order on 29.7.2002.  On the advise of the opposite party, he purchased another starter for a sum of Rs.5350/- on 31.7.2002 after returning the ‘Ranga Texvel starter’, but it had also not functioned at all.  Hence after issuing legal notice on 22.8.2002, the present complaint has been filed praying for a direction to the opposite party to replace the ‘Star Delta” starter and “Texmo” motor with new one, and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.   

 

4.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite party stating that the complainant will not come under the purview of  ‘consumer’, and  on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be rejected.  The opposite party had never given any false hope about the said product.  Furthermore, there is no warranty for any unexpected event pertaining to the article.  The bill clearly mentioned the same.  The complaint is devoid of merits and lacking in bonafides and deserves to be dismissed.

 

5.       In support of the contention, proof affidavits were filed by the parties, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A14 on the side of the complainant.  There were no documents filed on the side of the opposite party. 

 

6.       After careful consideration, the District Commission had come to the conclusion that though the defect in the product was brought to the knowledge of the opposite party, they had not come forward to rectify the defect immediately, therefore there is deficiency in service on their part, and thus allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to replace the Star Delta Starter with original new starter and pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation for mental agony, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. 

 

7.       Before this commission the Respondent/ opposite party though appeared through counsel, had not appeared for submitting their arguments.  Hence we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the documents and the order impugned.

 

8.       Now the only grievance of the appellant/ complainant is that a sum of Rs.10000/- awarded by the District Commission  appears to be on the lower side, considering the extent of mental agony suffered by the complainant, and thus prayed for enhancement of compensation.

 

9.       Having considered the submissions, we are of the opinion that the District Commission has not only awarded compensation, but also directed the Respondent/ opposite party to replace the starter with original new one.  Moreover, the complainant had not established his case for awarding the compensation as he prayed for.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since the cost of the starter itself was Rs.5350/-, the amount of @Rs.10000/- awarded by the District Commission is just and proper in the factual background of the case.  Thus, we do not find any justification to enhance the compensation, accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

10.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Vellore, in CC.No.22/2003 dt.5.3.2020.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT