By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :
The case of complainant is that on 4/3/03 the complainant purchased a Pappad making machine from the respondent for an amount of Rs.22,000/-. It became defective within a month. It was reported to respondent and even if installing two machines instead of the defective machine the functioning did not became proper. The capacitors were burnt also. So the complainant wanted replacement of the machine. But respondent was not willing. The machine has manufacturing defect. So it became defective. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that it is incorrect that the machine became defective within a month. It is true that on 4/3/03 the complainant purchased the machinery from respondent. There is an amount of Rs.11,500/- due from the complainant. Even after demanding the amount complainant refused to pay the same. This complaint is filed to escape from that liability. There was no deficiency in service from this respondent. There is no information from the complainant about the defect of the machine to respondent. The purchase of the machine was after ensuring the performance. If there is any defect it is because of the act of complainant. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice committed by respondent?
2) If so reliefs and costs?
4. Evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, RW1 and RW2, Exhibit P1, Exhibit R1 and Exhibit C1.
5. Points: The complaint is filed by alleging defect to a machinery purchased by complainant from the respondent for mixing flourof Pappad. According to complainant within a month of purchase it became defective. Even if respondent promised 15kg. capacity he obtained capacity only 8kg. The complainant also stated that capacitors were burnt and replaced four capacitors but of no use. So the complainant wants cost of the machine with interest.
6. The respondent filed his version and denied defects alleged by complainant. According to respondent it is incorrect that the machine has manufacturing defect. It is the contention of respondent that in the transaction there is an amount of Rs.11,500/- due to the respondent from the complainant. When this amount was asked this complaint is filed.
7. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibit P1 was marked. The marking of document was opposed as Photostat copy. His statements are in tune with his case. Exhibit P1 is an order form and respondent also produced another document which is marked as Exhibit R1 and according to respondent it is the order form. It is the case of complainant that as per Exhibit P1 he had purchased the machine. Both documents were opposed by both the parties. It can be seen that in both the documents there are corrections and over-writings. Both documents are dated 4/3/03. But according to respondent Exhibit R1 is the order form given by complainant to respondent. From which it can be seen that there is due amount of Rs.11,500/- and the advance amount was Rs.1,000/-.
8. Exhibit P1 is written in the letter head of respondent shop and can be considered that the writings are recorded by respondent. Accordingly Rs.1,000/- was given in advance. As per Exhibit P1 Rs.1,500/- was the balance amount to pay to respondent and RW1 also deposed that as per Exhibit P1 it is seen that Rs.1,500/- is due to him. If Rs.11,500/- is due from the complainant the machine will not be delivered. The delivery of the machine was in the year 2003 and at the time of examination of RW1 before the Forum on 10/12/2012 he also deposed that there is due amount of Rs.11,500/-. This view of RW1 cannot be believable at all. If that be so he will definitely take legal action for realization of the amount. According to complainant within a month the machine became defective and service done by respondent. If the entire amount or Rs.11,500/- was not given by complainant the respondent will not turn up. So the story of respondent that there is due amount of Rs.11,500/- from the complainant is seen false and untrue.
9. The complainant wants cost of the machine along with interest from the respondent because of defects of the machine. He also deposed the defects and the expert also inspected the machine and report filed. Exhibit C1 is the report prepared by PW2, Sri.Purushothaman Namboothiri. According to him the things seen and realized by him were reported in Exhibit C1. In Exhibit C1 it is reported that by using the motor installed in the machine, the machine cannot be worked. The electric motor is low quality and does not have ISI mark. At the time of functioning the capacitor is becoming very much hot and if work like this it will be exploded. Likewise PW2 reported the defect of the machine one after another. As per Exhibit C1 it can be seen that the machine is defective. The respondent filed objection to commission report by stating the date of inspection, date of filing complaint etc.
10. As per report of another expert Sri. George Thomas, he only reported that the electrical motor which was the main component of the machine was not working properly at that time and was not meeting the purposes. Now same was dismantled by petitioner and it is replaced with a new one and now Pappad making machine is working properly. He has reported the things stated by complainant and not the things inspected. It is also his opinion that the condition of the original machine can only be certified only after the restoration of the Pappad making machine to the condition at the time of supply of the machine. This can be done by reassembling of the original motor with the Pappad making machine unit. So it can be considered that the report of George Thomas is not a report at all and it is only the opinion of him without inspecting the same.
11. RW2 is a witness examined from respondent and it is his version that he has the knowledge of functioning of the disputed machine. But according to him he failed to notice whether the machine is working in the specific capacity. He is the Manager of respondent firm from 1995 onwards.
12. The complainant claims Rs.22,000/- along with interest and compensation. There is no evidence whether the machine is using now or entrusted with the respondent. It was purchased on 4/3/03 and more than 10 years is over now. The replacement of the original or the return of cost of the same cannot be ordered in this situation because the present condition is not come before the Forum. There is no doubt about the unfair trade practice committed by respondent. In the peculiar circumstance we order the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and which is seen reasonable.
13. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) including commission batta within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of February 2014.
