Date of filing:22.7.2013
Date of Disposal:22.4.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N.TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014.
C.C.No.131 OF 2013.
Between :
Ch.Anjani Kumar, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy, Hindu, 50 years, R/o 1F-1, Shirdi Sai Residency, Kakarapartivari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada – 520 011.
….. Complainant.
And
1. P.V.Ratnakar, Proprietor, Showers Luxury Bath Styles (A Division of Panduranga Enterprises), C/o Panduranga Enterprises, Prakasam road, Governorpet, Vijayawada.
2. The Marketing Manager, Cera Marketing Office, Cera Sanitary Ware Limited, Madhusudhan House, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 006.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 11.4.2014 in the presence of Sri P.V.Suryanarayana, Counsel for complainant and Sri K.V.V.Parameswara Rao, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective commode of Cera Company make (2043 Clayton EWC FM Ivory) with a new defect free one of same model or in the alternative to refund the entire sale consideration of Rs.14,765/- with interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and discomfort, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs and for other reliefs.
1. The brief facts which lead to the filing of the present complaint are that the 1st opposite party is the dealer of Cera Ceramic Products and the 2nd opposite party is manufacturer of same. The complainant with an intention to purchase western style toilet commodes visited the shop of 1st opposite party and after satisfying with the representations made by the 1st opposite party about durability of the Ceramic products, purchased two commodes of Cera company i.e. 2067 Charisma EWC FM Ivory Set for Rs.17,895/- and 2043 Claton EWC FM Ivory Set for Rs.18,455/- along with other fittings under cash bill No.89, dt.20.6.2013. Before taking delivery of said items, the personnel of 1st opposite party showed only top portion of the commodes which were covered with cartons and when the complainant insisted to show entire set for verification, they informed that they were already pre checked and further assured that if there is any defect, they will replace the same. While so, the complainant engaged a plumber on 21.6.2013 for erection of two commodes and at the time of fixing the 2nd commode, the plumber noticed a breakage on the back side of flush tank and informed the same to the complainant. Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 24.6.2013 and shown the damage to the 1st opposite party and requested to replace the same, for which the 1st opposite party paid a deaf ear. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dt.25.6.2013 demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective commode with new one. The 2nd opposite party did not issue any reply. The 1st opposite party gave reply with false and untenable allegations. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 2nd opposite party remained absent. The 1st opposite party filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint and stated that before purchasing the commodes, the complainant has thoroughly verified the quality of the same and after satisfying with the quality of the commodes and its colour, the complainant purchased the same. The 1st opposite party and his staff opened the package and shown the same to the complainant and also stated that the 1st opposite party is not at all responsible for any damage of breakage of the goods after the same were left from the shop and the complainant purchased the goods after verifying the breakages and damages and the 1st opposite party is not at all responsible for the breakage or damage caused to the commodes either in the way or at the time of fixing of same and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A12. The 1st opposite party filed affidavit, but no documents marked.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying the defective commode to the complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1:-
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), there is no dispute with regard to the purchase of Western Commode 2043 Clayton EWC FM Ivory Set which is manufactured by Cera Company i.e. 2nd opposite party, by complainant on 20.6.2013 for Rs.18,455/- from the 1st opposite party along with another commode and other fittings. Ex.A1 cash invoice establishes the same. The case of the complainant is that at the time of purchase, the personnel of 1st opposite party showed only top portion covered with cartons and when he insisted them to show the entire item for the verification, they stated that the items were pre-checked and further assured that they will replace the same if there is any damage. It is further case of complainant that he engaged one plumber for fixing of the commodes and on the same day, one commode was fixed and on the next day when the second commode was fixing, the plumber noticed damage on the back side of flush box and informed the same to the complainant who immediately approached the 1st opposite party and showed the damage and requested to replace the same with new one. But the 1st opposite party paid a deaf ear and failed to replace the same in spite of issuing Ex.A2 legal notice. In this regard, the contention of opposite party No.1 is that they have shown the item by opening the package to the complainant and after satisfying with the quality and colour of commodes, the complainant purchased the same and at the time of purchase, there is no damage to the commodes and the damage may have occurred at the time of transport or fixing of commode. The 1st opposite party through Ex.A4 reply notice also made clear the above facts.
7. Admittedly the complainant purchased the commode on 20.6.2013 and got issued legal notice on 25.6.2013. The complainant got marked Ex.A5 to A12 photographs which shows that there is damage on the back side of flush box of the commode. According to complainant the said damage existed prior to his purchase and the 1st opposite party personnel to cover the said damage, has not shown the entire item. On the other hand, the contention of 1st opposite party is that they have shown the entire item to complainant before purchase of same and the said damage may have occurred while transporting the item or at the time of fixing of same. To prove the said rival contentions, there will be no evidence on behalf of either parties as the sale transaction was done merely on good faith on each other. But whatever may be the reason, there is damage to the commode, which is evident from photographs. The complainant being a consumer should be vigilant and ought to have insisted for thorough verification of item before purchase. Having failed to establish the damage at the time of purchase, now the complainant cannot go back and seek replacement of commode in view of the specific mention in Ex.A1 bill that the ‘goods once sold cannot taken back’. In view of the above circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
POINT No.2:-
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 22nd day of April, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 Ch.Anjani Kumar D.W.1 P.V.Ratnakar,
Complainant 1st opposite party
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 20.06.2012 Photocopy of Cash Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party for Rs.31,500/-..
Ex.A.2 25.06.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.3 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.4 09.07.2013 Reply notice.
Ex.A.5 07.04.2014 Photograph.
Ex.A.6 07.04.2014 Photograph.
Ex.A.7 07.04.2014 Photograph.
Ex.A.8 07.04.2014 Photograph.
Ex.A.9 07.04.2014 Photograph.
Ex.A.10 07.04.2014 Photograph.
Ex.A.11 07.04.2014 Photograph.
Ex.A.12 07.04.2014 Photograph.
On behalf of the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
