Date of filing : 27-10-2011
Date of order : 29-09-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.280/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of September 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Vineeth.T.Joseph, S/o.Joseph, : Complainant
Thengumpallil House, Nallompuzha,
Kannivayal,.Po. Hosdurg Taluk.
(Adv.Johny Scaria, Hosdurg)
1 Nitheesh, Manager, PSN construction : Opposite parties
Equipments Pvt.Ltd, APW-X-167/1,
Meladukkam, Anandasram.Po, Kanhangad,
Pin: 671315.
2 M/s.P.S.N.Construction Equipments Pvt.Ltd,
APW-X-167/1,
Meladukkam, Anandasram.Po, Kanhangad,
Pin: 671315. Rep.by. it’s Manager.
(Adv.V.Krishna Menon & P.NarayananKochi)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The gist of the complaint of Sri.Vineeth.T.Joseph is that he purchased one ‘Ripper Teeth’ from the firm of opposite party, who is the dealer of construction of equipments for a sum of Rs.36,547/- on 26-09-2010. Complainant is a driver by profession eking out his lively hood by operating excavator. He purchased ‘Ripper Teeth’ for digging of hard soil and red sand stone by connecting the same with excavator. After purchase of ‘Ripper Teeth’ when connected with excavator it was not functioning and moving in the proper angle.
2. Opposite party filed version stating that the ‘Ripper Teeth’ is manufactured by the manufacturer of excavator viz M/s Telcon and sold through its authorized dealer M/s P.S.N. Construction equipments Pvt Ltd for the alleged manufacturing defect in the Ripper Teeth this opposite party cannot be held personally liable. Manufacturer is not made party to the proceedings. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessary party. It is further submitted that the complainant is the registered owner of a goods carrier truck having Reg.No.KL-60-B-4863 which was also being used for his business purposes, so he cannot be treated as a consumer. Moreover, the Ripper Teeth is a totally different part which is connected separately to the machine (Excavator). The machine can be operated even without fitting Ripper Teeth.
3. Opposite party filed IA 338/11 raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint which is dismissed on the ground that the application is premature and it lacks bonafide and is devoid of merits. Complainant filed IA 40/12 to implead supplemental opposite party No.2 and IA 41/12 to amend the complaint. Both IAs allowed. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 & A2 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused. The questions raised for consideration are:
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2 If so what is the relief?
4. Issue No.1: Complainant deposed before the Forum that he purchased ‘Ripper Teeth’ from opposite party No.1 to dig the earth attaching with excavator. It is supplied by opposite party No.2. Opposite parties offered one year warranty. The Ripper Teeth purchased on 26-09-2010 it was attached on 28-09-2010 since it is found that it is not properly functioning. The Ripper Teeth was returned to opposite party on 30-09-2010 just 3 days after purchase. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill issued by opposite party to the complainant on 26-09-2010. Ext.A2 is the notice sent by the East Eleri Consumer Protection Society on behalf of the complainant on 20-09-2011 calling upon opposite parties for a settlement in the complaint. From the deposition made by DW1, Zonal service Head of M/s PSN Construction equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd, the complaint of the Ripper Teeth was that Ripper Teeth touched arm, which is a common design. Company’s representatives went to the work site of the complainant and found the complaint of the equipment. As per the direction of the company, the machine was taken to the dealer, with the consent of the complainant opposite parties made some alteration in the equipment. After repairing the machine intimation was given to the complainant. But the complainant did not taken back the machine so far. But it is clear from the affidavit and deposition of opposite parties that the ‘Ripper Teeth’ was not repaired in time, complainant neither use the equipment nor he earned any income with it. Thereby the complainant could not repay bank loan. Complainant sustained heavy loss and mental pain, which is to be compensated in monitory terms. Due to the delay in finding out the mistake of equipment by opposite parties complainant sustained heavy loss. “Definitely delay defect justice” such a long delay in giving after sale service shows deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of opposite parties.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to return back the defect free ‘Ripper Teeth’ with one year warranty, opposite party No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- with a cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1.Bill
A2. 20-09-2010 Copy of letter sent by East eleri Grama Panchayath Consumer Protection Samithi
Kadumeni.
PW1. Vineeth. T.Joseph
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTE
