IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2014
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.148/2013 (Filed on 23.11.2013)
Between:
Simon, aged 71,
Arakaperumathu House,
Aythala.P.O.,
Pazhavangadi Village,
Ranni Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist. ….. Complainant
(By Adv.S. Manoj)
And:
1. Nissan Clean India Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office, 17-19 Narayan Estate,
Near Rajpur Mill Compound,
Saraspur, Ahamedabad,
India – 380 018, Rep. by its-
Managing Director.
2. Nissan Sumariya,
Director, Marketing,
Nissan Clean India Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office, 17-19 Narayan Estate,
Near Rajpur Mill Compound,
Saraspur, Ahamedabad,
India – 380 018. ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The complainant for the purpose of starting a car washing unit under the name and style ‘Aaran Car Wash’ at Aythala in Pazhavangadi village has placed an order with the opposite parties for the purchase of Roll over car wash system. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the above system and paid a part sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs at the time of placing the order by way of bank transfer. The total price of the system is Rs.13,82,750/- which includes price of the system, installation charge and tax. The balance sale consideration of Rs.8,82,750/- is paid as per the bill dated 21.11.2012. The above system was installed at the premises of the complainant and inaugurated the functioning of the system on 31.12.2012. The above system is installed for the livelihood of complainant’s son Vinoj Simon. Before installing the system required license and permits from local self govt., pollution control board and small industries department are obtained. Moreover the complainant has constructed a building for housing the service centre and also purchased a generator spending Rs.3 lakhs for uninterrupted power supply. Further the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the Pazhavangadikkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. for the purpose of purchasing the above system.
3. At the time of purchasing the above system, the complainant and his son have enquired about the quality, performance and perfection of the system with the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party assured and made to believe the complainant that the entire system is manufactured with good quality parts and the system is free from any defect and its performance is very good. Further the engineering and technical staff of the opposite parties given training and instructions to the workers appointed by the complainant at the time of installing the system.
4. Even though the system was started functioning from 31.12.2012 onwards, its functioning was stopped on 09.01.2013. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party and on 28.01.2013 the engineers came and rectified the defect. Thereafter the system continued functioning till 11th May 2013 and stopped working on that day and the complainant informed the defect with the opposite party and the service engineers of the opposite party came and cured the defect. Thereafter, the system again stopped from 02.06.2013 till 23.06.2013 till the technicians of the opposite party came and rectified the complaint. The complaints to the above system is frequently occurred from 30.06.2013 till 13.07.2013, from 26.07.2013 to 22.08.2013, from 13.09.2013 to 17.09.2013 and from 10.10.2013 to 17.10.2013. The defect and complaints occurred on the system is due to its manufacturing defect as well as due to the using of poor quality parts. The complainant has engaged a main operator and an assistant for the purpose of operating the car washing system. The main operator is paying a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- and the assistant is paid with a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. Some occasions the brushes of the car washing system were not properly functioning which resulted in occurring scratches on the body of many vehicles.
5. Opposite parties assured the complainant that if any complaint occurs to the system it will be attended by experts in quick succession and they have service providers at Ernakulam. But in fact there is no proper service net work or any proper system available to the opposite parties. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting a total amount of Rs.19,92,750/- from the opposite parties under various heads.
6. In this case, even after receiving the notice opposite parties has not turned up and hence they are declared as exparte.
7. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. Evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
9. The Point:- The allegations leveled against the opposite parties is that complainant purchased a Roll over car wash system through 2nd opposite party, manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 17.04.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.13,82,750/-. Complainant also constructed a separate building for the purpose of installing the system and also purchased a generator. Even though the system started functioning from 3112.2012 onwards its functioning was stopped on 09.01.2013. Complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties and they rectified the defect. Thereafter two times it become defective and opposite parties rectified the defect. The complaints of the above system is frequently occurring. The defect of the system is due to its manufacturing defect as well as due to the poor quality of the parts used.
10. At the time of purchase, opposite parties assured the complainant that if any complaint occurs to the system, it will be attended by their experts in quick succession and they have service providers at Ernakulam. But in fact, there is no proper service network or any system available to the opposite party to respond quickly to the complaints. Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service to the complainant by providing a defective product to the complainant, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence they are liable to the complainant for the same and hence the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
11. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit along with 3 documents, which is marked as Exts.A1 to A3 on the basis of the proof affidavit. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 21.11.2012. Ext.A1(a) is the terms and conditions of sales issued by opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the scope of supply and non-scope of supply (specification) issued by opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the site report prepared by service engineer on 17.05.2013.
12. From the available evidence, it is seen that the complainant had purchased a car washing system manufactured by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant it started functioning from 31.12.2012 onwards and its functioning stopped on 09.01.2013 at first and on several occasions thereafter. From Ext.A3, it is clear that on 17.05.2013 the service engineers of the opposite parties visited and cured the defect. According to the complainant the defect is still continuing and it is due to its manufacturing defect. Selling a product having manufacturing defect and the non redressal of the grievance of the complaint by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Since opposite parties are exparte, complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. Therefore, we find that opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby opposite parties are directed to repair the system, if it is repairable, free of cost with compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the system Rs.13,82,750/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand seven hundred and fifty only) along with cost and compensation ordered herein above with 10% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization of the whole amount from the opposite parties.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of January, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Retail invoice dated 21.11.2012 for Rs.13,82,750 issued by the
opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
A1(a) : Terms and conditions of sales issued by opposite parties to the
complainant.
A2 : Scope of supply and non-scope of supply (specification) issued
by opposite parties to the complainant.
A3 : Site report dated 17.05.2013 prepared by service engineer.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Simon, Arakaperumathu House, Aythala.P.O.,
Pazhavangadi Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) Managing Director, Nissan Clean India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office,
17-19 Narayan Estate, Near Rajpur Mill Compound, Saraspur,
Ahamedabad, India – 380 018.
(3) Nissan Sumariya, Director, Marketing, Nissan Clean India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 17-19 Narayan Estate, Near Rajpur Mill Compound, Saraspur, Ahamedabad, India – 380 018.
(4) The Stock File.
