D.O.F:07/11/2022
D.O.O:30/05/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.272/2022
Dated this, the 30th day of May 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdul Jaleel
S/o P A Kunhamu
Chembirika
Chandragiri P O
Kasaragod. : Complainant
And
Nava Bharath Machine Tools
Padoor Shopping Complex
New Bus stand, Kasaragod.
(Adv: K K Muhammed Shafi) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, he purchased a brush cutter machine from the shop of opposite party, Nava Bharath Machine tools at Padoor Shopping Complex New bus stand, Kasaragod. Due to the engine failure of the machine, he could not work properly. He took the machine 4 times to opposite party within 3 months to cure the engine defects. But due to the service deficiency, defect of the machine is not cured properly. Besides that, opposite party charged more amount for spare parts than original price. Due to the continuous failure of the machine and repairs, the complainant had undergone huge monitory loss and severe mental agony. Hence the complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- from opposite party.
Adv. K.K. Muhammed Shafi appeared, filed version for opposite party. According to them the above petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. They denied that the complainant had purchased one brush cutter machine from the shop of the opposite party. It is further denied that due to the engine problem, he took it for repair 4 times to opposite party in the last 3 months. The opposite party again denied that they are not carrying out service properly. It is also denied that on 7/11/2022 the complainant took the machine for repair, and the opposite party collected more than Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of spare parts. The opposite party alleges that this complaint is filed with ulterior motive. The opposite party is running his business since last many years and he earned good will from the customers and he is rendering sincere service and customer friendly approach. He never collected excessive amount from any of his customer. The complainant approached this Commission with unclean hands. He has not produced any of the documents before this Commission for the verification of the opposite party. Hence the petition may be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 and A2. The complainant is cross examined as PW1 and another witness is examined as PW2. When it is posted for opposite party’s evidence, there was no representation from the side of opposite party in 2 consecutive postings. Heard the complainant. The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
All issues can be discussed together. The allegation of the complainant is that, due to the failure of the brush cutter machine, purchased from the shop of opposite party, he could not work properly. The complainant had produced tax invoice No. BMT 22-23/2961 dated 7/11/2022 issued from opposite party, which is marked as Ext. A1. Another invoice issued from opposite party dated 7/11/2022 is also produced, which is marked as Ext.A2. These 2 bills produced to prove that the opposite party charged more price than original price. And the service charge taken as per Ext. A2 is Rs. 1,000/-. Yet the defect of the machine is not cured. Charging more amount as service charge and more price for spare parts amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The defect of the machine continues means the service of opposite party was not proper. This Commission had allowed time to adduce the evidence for the opposite party, but they did not adduced any evidence. In the absence of material evidence on the part of opposite party complainant’s allegations stands proved. This Commission carefully gone through the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, Ext. A1 and A2 proves there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, which caused monitory loss and severe mental agony to the complainant. The opposite party is liable to make good the monitory loss and mental agony undergone by the complainant.
The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with cost. But the complainant has not produced any evidence for such a huge loss. This commission holds that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) along with cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Tax invoice
A2 – Invoice
Witness cross-examined
PW1 - Abdul Jaleel
PW2 – Ibrahim
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
