JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Md. Rafeeq against Opposite M/s. Shanthi Corporation Raichur U/section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award a sum of Rs. 5,650/- towards expenses incurred by him, in replacement of new water tank, to award an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as a compensation towards mental agony, hardship and deficiency in service and to award an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 05-11-09 till realization of the full amount with other relief’s as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he purchased Surya overhead water tank of 1000 liters capacity on 30-10-02 for Rs. 4,000/- from opposite with guarantee period for (12) years, but within the warranty period i.e, on 05-11-09. The said over head water tank busted and crushed automatically from bottom to top, due to manufactural defects, thereafter he contacted opposite for to replace the new water tank, but opposite shown its negligence in replacing it, therefore he filed this complaint for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Opposite appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by denying the entire case of complainant. According to it M/s. Shanthi Corporation is no way concerned to Prathik Marketing Raichur, it has got its own separate marketing business from Prathik Marketing. The complainant has not purchased any material from him, there was no receipt of consideration from him. Hence the allegation of deficiency in service not arises from it, accordingly prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, on 30-10-02 he purchased 1000 liters of water over head tank by name Surya from opposite for Rs. 4,000/- and later on 05-11-09 it busted and damaged by itself, due to manufactural defects within the warranty period of (12) years, he brought the same to the notice of opposite but it shown its negligence in replacement of new tank, in place of defective water tank and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the opposite was filed who is noted as RW-1. No documents filed and marked.<br /> <br /> 7. The entire case of complainant is based on his affidavit-evidence and one document which is unmarked. Other documents namely Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 are in respect of bills for the purchase of new water tank. The case of complainant is based on guarantee card, as per his contention even though he purchased tank in the year 2002, but it damaged within the guarantee period of (12) years, he brought the same fact to the notice of opposite for to replace the new one. The said guarantee card shows that, dealer and supplier of the tank is Prathik Marketing, opposite Sub-Post Office, Gunj Road, Raichur. The said firm is not made a party in this case, however the complainant contended that, M/s. Shanthi Corporation which is an opposite corporation formerly known as Prathik Marketing, but he has not produced any documents or any affidavit-evidences of other persons to establish the fact that, the present opposite M/s. Shanthi Corporation is formerly known as Prathik Marketing said to have sold the water tank to him in the year 2002. Under the said circumstances, we are not in a position to fix the responsibility on M/s. Shanthi Corpration who is opposite in this case by virtue of the guarantee card as entire allegation pleaded by the complainant have been totally denied by the opposite, as such, we are of the view that, the other documents filed by the complainant at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 are not helpful to establish the deficiency in service by this opposite M/s. Shanthi Corporation, accordingly we have not accepted the allegations of the complainant and answered Point No-1. in Negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 8. In view of the findings on Point No. 1, the complainant is not entitled for any of the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 9. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-03-10)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />