IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 30th day of June, 2016.
Filed on 03..02..2016.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.41/2016
Between
Complainants: Opposite parties:
- Smt Sajimol P. 1. Ocean Victoria Polyform
W/o Venulal P. V.Kaipully Arimpur
Pappalil HouseThrissur,Kerala
Muhamma P. O.
Alappuzha
- Venulal P. V. 2. Sudharsanan Sanitary Ware
Pappalil HouseNear Dist. Co-operative Bank
Muhamma, AlappuzhaMuhamma, Alappuzha.
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:
The complainants on 2nd February 2014 purchased a water tank of 10000 litres for an amount of Rs.70,586/- (seventy thousand five hundred and eighty six) from the opposite parties. The water tank carried warranty for a period of 10 years. The complainants paid the cost of the material water tank on 3rd July 2014. The complainants built a concrete tank by investing a huge amount of Rs.96,000/- (ninety six thousand) for keeping the material tank therein unharmed. However in November the top of the tank was found ripped apart. Instantaneously the opposite parties were intimated and the opposite parties’ personnel visited the complainant premise, inspected the tank, and took the photographs of the same. First of all the opposite parties took a favorable stand, but later they changed their attitude, and scornfully refused to address the complainants’ grievance. The water tank the opposite parties supplied had inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant was very careful in maintaining the water tank. Yet the same ripped open. Now the complainants are deprived of water. The complainant sustained mental agony and monetary loss. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite party turned up and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite parties is that the complainants mismanaged the water tank exposing it to get damaged. According to the opposite parties, the material tank had no manufacturing defect. The crack on the top of the tank must have happened either by the fall of a heavy substance on it or by a forceful thrust with some heavy object over it. The plumber must have pulled up the concrete slab kept over it, and in every possibility the same could have slipped out and fell on the tank causing the same damaged, the opposite parties contend. However in a bonhomus gesture the opposite parties are very much prepared to replace the tank with a brand new one in the event of the complainant’s hand them back the old tank and give half the cost of the material tank.
3. The complainants’ evidence consists of the complainants’ affidavit, testimony of PW1 and the documents Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. Though the opposite parties appeared and filed version, they did not make it a point to adduce any evidence or to pursue the case any further.
4. Going by the complainants’ contentions, the questions that come up in our mind for consideration are:
(a) Whether the water tank the complainant purchased was defective?
(b) Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
5. Bearing in mind the contentions of the complainant, we went through the complaint and other materials brought on record by the complainant. On a bare perusal of Exts.A1 to A5, it is firmly revealed that the complainants purchased the material water tank from the opposite
parties. On the other hand the opposite parties never disputed or denied the said factum of purchase. What is more the opposite parties are even prepared to replace the water tank in dispute with a brand new one if the complainants are not reluctant to pay half of the cost of the new tank. However the complainant’s specific case is that the material tank suffers from inherent defect, the top of the tank ripped apart despite proper upkeep. According to the complainants they have lost faith in the material brand and they required refund of the cost of the material tank. A plain perusal of the Exts.A1 to A5 documents and testimony of PW1 manifestly testifies that there was crack on the top of the water tank, and that too was not caused by any kind of extraneous impact. Significantly, the opposite party, as we have observed initially has not come ahead to challenge the complainant case save filing version, Needless to say mere making contentions cannot take the place of evidence. Thus in the context of the complainants’ plausible case, and in the premise of the opposite parties not properly disputing the same, we are of the strong view that the complainants are entitled to relief. It goes without saying that the service of the opposite party is deficient and the opposite party is liable.
6. In the circumstances discussed the above, the opposite parties are directed to give back Rs.70,586/- (Seventy thousand five hundred and eighty six only) the cost of the water tank to the complainant on taking back the old water tank. No order as cost and compensation. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX
Documents for the Complainant:
PW1 - Sri. Ashokan T. P. (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Warranty card of the water tank
Ext. A2 - Copy of the bill for Rs.70,586/-
Ext. A3 - Copy of the top of the water tank
Ext. A4 - Copy of the photo of the water tank
Ext. A5 - Copy of the photo of the building
Documents for the opposite parties: Nil.
//True copy//-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by:- Pj/-
Compd. by:-
