IN  THE CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,    KOLLAM

               DATED THIS THE    6^th   DAY OF  JULY 2020

Present: -    Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

         Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

        Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member   

CC.No.140/2015

Anilkumar.A.K                                                              :         Complainant

Bhagavathyvilasom

Pulippara P.O

Altharamoodu, Kadakkal

Kadakkalvillage,Kollam.

(By Adv.V.Mohankumar)

V/s

1. Proprietor                                                              :         Opposite parties

         Softtrays

        Diesel power

        T.C.13(1),Sangeetha building,

         Kannammoola,Medical college P.O

      (By Adv.ChirakkarathazhamS.Sureshkumar)

2. Manager

        Powerica Ltd.

        Kunhalu palace, 3^rd Floor

       P.T.Usharoad,Ernakulam

       Cochin-682011.

      (By Adv.ChirakkarathazhamS.Sureshkumar)

3. M/s Cummins India Ltd.

         Power Generation Unit,

        35/A/1/2

       Erandwane,Pune-411038.

4. Business Development Manager(Power Products)

         Cummis India Ltd.

        Power Generation Business Unit

       Coimbatore.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

1. This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The opposite parties are dealing with the business and service of power generators and as a part of the solicitation of their business product they contacted the complainant and discussed about their product.  Believing the offers made by the opposite parties the complainant on 09.02.2012 purchased a diesel generator having the capacity 62.5 KVA with accessories recommended for the use of his residence at Kadakkal by paying the price of Rs.6, 00,000/- to the 1^st opposite party who issued a cash bill also.  The 2^nd opposite party offered the service of the equipment. 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer and 4^th opposite party is a business colleague of other opposite parties.

The said generator set was installed in an appropriate place and position as recommended by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in the presence and supervision of their service personnel.  But there was complaints from the very beginning of the use of the equipment. Even then the complainant managed to use the same in accordance with specification and directions as per manual issued.  And set was installed and used by the complainant solely for the domestic purpose which he used it with utmost care and protection as he can give.  However while using the machine it went on mal functioning with terrific sound with failure in the automatic component which ought have been worked without manual operation when power supply fails.  Yet another defect noted is that there is heavy quantity of oil leakage from it.  After the date of purchase and installation, the machine had functioned only for 27 hrs.  Thereafter the complainant informed these problems in time to the opposite parties but the service rendered by them was not found fruitful, because the system failed repeatedly.  The complainant was dissatisfied from the very beginning, because he cannot properly use the generator purchased by him spending huge amount.  According to the complainant the failure of the equipment from the beginning and continuance of defects after repeated service shows that the equipment is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning.  During the period of 10 months from the date of installation the complainant contacted the opposite parties number of times but their men attended the machine at highly delayed stage which amounts to deficiency in service.  It was a usual experience that the machine went on failure again within a few hours after getting it repaired which would indicate that it was a substandard item supplied by the opposite parties by suppressing material facts.  The complainant apprehends that if the machine is started there is every chance of fire and allied dangers and the complainant cannot handle such incidents personally.

3.       The complainant has issued a legal notice and also approached this forum by filing a complainant as CC 22/2013.  The matter was settled by the opposite party 1 and 2 agreeing to rectify the mistake and extending warranty for further one year and also paying nominal compensation.  On satisfaction and believing the assurance of the opposite parties the matter was closed.  Thereafter the Business development manager of the 4^thopposite party communicated by sending Email stating their willingness to repair the equipment and extending the warranty as on 30.11.2013.  Thereafter the service of the equipment was continued by the opposite parties only up to one year and the machine functioned rather raising problems shortly till then but only up to the end of warranty period.  Thereafter the machine again started malfunctioning, for which the complainant sent intimations on several times, but there was no response from any of them except making a visit of a service personnel and also serving a report to the complainant stating that an equipment ATS relay went on complaint and also directed to make paid service of any damaged parts. But as per bill and MRP affixed in parts require replacement.  It is made clear by the complainant that the opposite party never turned up because they wanted to render service without giving exact price and warranty as offered for the equipment now needed to be replaced.  As per the complainant none of the parts of the generator is available locally and the complainant can neither do any repair with the local technicians as it is a monopoly product.  In the circumstances the complainant again sent notice through advocate on 14.03.2015 but they abstained from receiving notice and that is why the complainant was compelled to institute this complaint.  It is inferred from the acts of the opposite parties that a situation for settlement was created by the opposite parties purposefully to escape from their liabilities temporarily and plan was cooked up by then to deceive the complainant after withdrawing the petition previously pending.  Hence their acts amounts absolutely an unfair trade practice apart from deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

4.       In response of the notice issued from the forum both opposite party 1 and 2  appeared and resisted the complainant with tooth and nail by filing a joint version. At the same time opposite party 3^rd and 4^th failed to appear after receiving notice.  Hence they were set exparte. 

5.       The main contentions of the joint version filed by the 1^st and 2^ndopposite parties are as follows.

The complaint is not maintainable either in law on or facts.  It is barred by the principle of res judicata.  The contention of the opposite parties that there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complaint has been filed by suppressing true and material facts of the case for the purpose of undue advantage.  According to the opposite parties they were ready and willing to extend all kinds of service and support for the proper functioning of the machine. But they could not perform their duty since the complainant was not willing to pay the repair charges and the charges of the spare parts even after the expiry of the warranty period.  And further contends that complainant filed this complaint to misuse the instrumentality of this Hon’ble Forum in order to obtain illegal gains.  According to the opposite parties the complainant has purchased the same product for use in hotel business at Thiruvananthapuram and it is working without any default and on getting satisfied with the performance of the product, the complainant purchased one for his home also. 

It is further contended by the opposite parties that the power generator of the Powerica Limited is well known brand of the company which is being sold to the southern Railway throughout and to the other reputed establishments and are functioning there without any dissatisfaction from any of the customers.  The opposite parties would admit that complainant has purchased a diesel generator from the 1^st opposite party and the same has been properly installed and was functioning without any default and the periodical service required during the warranty period was also performed without any default.  The opposite party would also contend that whenever the complainant required the service from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 it was extended without any delay but the attitude of the complainant was very rude and he has unnecessarily created chaotic atmosphere and made unbecoming remarks towards service personnel without any satisfactory reasons.  It is further contended by the opposite parties that the complainant intended repeated service without any charge even after the expiry of warranty period.  Raising such unsustainable contentions once the complainant filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Forum as C.C.No.22/2013 which was settled in the Lokadaltand the 2^nd opposite party has extended the warranty period for a further period of one year as suggested in the settlement.  But even after the expiry of the extended warranty period the complainant began to create problems one after another alleging silly reasons.  The complainant filed the present complaint with mala fide intention to get the warranty extended by using coercive tactics. 

6.       It is further contended by the opposite parties that the place where the equipment was installed was facing voltage fluctuations making it unable to function initially.  It is further contended by the opposite party that they have requested the complainant to purchase a stabilizer.  But the complainant was not amenable.  Hence the opposite parties purchased one stabilizer by spending their own fund and installed the same at the premises of the complainant.  According to the opposite parties voltage fluctuation  caused damage to the relay of AMF which in turn caused damage to the Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) that the 2^nd opposite party offered service to the electrical and electronic parts within the warranty period of one year. The complainant is demanding free service even after the warranty period and is not ready to pay service charges as fixed by the company. 

7.       It is also contended that the 2^nd opposite party has sold the spare parts of the product for genuine prices but the complainant was not willing to purchase the same at the price fixed by the company.  The opposite parties are ready to give tax bill to the complainant on every purchase and it cannot sell the product by varying the price.  Opposite parties would also content that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs and compensatory costs.

8.       In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the defective ATS replaced by the opposite parties at the MRP rate and whether he is entitled to get warrantee for the ATS which is to be replaced as claimed in the complaint?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get the defective power generator  repaired and get it in a working condition by replacing the defective parts at the expenses of opposite party No.1to 3  as claimed?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 in giving proper service to the power generator sold to the complainant?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation if so what would be quantum of compensation to be awarded?
5. Reliefs and costs?

9.  Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 & PW2 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P3, Ext.P4 series Ext.P5, Ext.P6 series Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 series documents.  PW1 is none other than the complainant and PW2 is the Expert Commissioner, Asst.Professor at Younus College of Engineering, Kollam deputed at the application of the complainant.

10.         Evidence on the side of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 consists of oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 . RW1 is Ramdas Nedungadi Branch Manager of Powerica Ltd.  RW2 is Lal Prasad proprietor, softtrays.

11.         The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2 jointly filed notes of argument.  The learned counsel for the complainant has also filed a belated  notes of argument  after hearing the matter.

12.     Heard both sides.

Point 1  to 3

13.     For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together.  The complainant has raised many fold allegations against the opposite parties regarding the service of the power generator purchased from the 1^st opposite party and installed at his residence.  The said allegations would include deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 to 3.The  2^nd opposite party has denied the request to repair the ATS mainly on two grounds.  The 1^st ground is that the complainant demanded to repair the power generator free of cost on warranty which according to 2^nd opposite party is not possible since warrantee and extended warranty period was already over. The 2^nd ground urged is that the complainant has demanded MRP labelled spare part (ATS).According to the 1st and 2^nd opposite parties they are not ready to obtain MRP labelled ATS and they have taken a stand that they will not supply ATS labelled with MRP.  It is further contented that as the complainant insisted to repair the generator on warrantee and also insisted MRP labelled ATS to be replaced, the request to replace ATS was not carried which is not due to the fault of the opposite parties.  According to the complainant they are taking such a stand with amalafideintention to realize  heavy price for the ATS.  The complainant also alleges malafides in not providing warranty for ATS.

14.     However the following are the admitted rather undisputed facts in this case.  The 1^st opposite party is the dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service agent of the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer and 4^th opposite party is also a business colleague of other opposite parties.  According to the complainant opposite party No.1 & 2 contacted the complainant and discussed about their product by name power generator.  Believing the offers made by the opposite parties the complainant on 09.02.2012 purchased  one diesel power generator having capacity of 62.5 KVA with accessories from the 1^st opposite party.  It is also an admitted fact that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have caused to install the same at the residence of the complainant at Kadakkal which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.  It is also an admitted fact that the price of the diesel generator was  Rs.6, 00,000/- and the entire amount was paid by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dealer who issued Ext.P1 cash invoice.The generator is  having only one year warranty that during the said warranty period the  power generator has became defective.  Hence the complainant filed a case as CC 22/13 before this forum and that case was settled at the adalath by directing the opposite parties to give extended warranty. Accordingly the disputed power generator was repaired by curing defect and extended warranty was also given.  However after the extended warranty period the disputed generator again become defective.  The complainant intimated the facts and accordingly technicians of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party came over at the residence of the complainant at Kadakkal and inspected the disputed power generator and found that the ATS relay was not working,  and also issued Ext.P2 field service report on 03.03.2015 by noting the defects of the generator and also stating that disputed power generator is not in a working condition as ATS relay is faulty and that the defect will be rectified later.  However in spite of the repeated request of the complainant the defect was not cured by the opposite parties.  The said module (ATS)enables the generator to switch automatically when the power fails.  Repeated damage of ATS module incurred which demands manual starting of the generator system by the complainant which is highly inconvenient.Hence the complainant caused to send Ext.P3 lawyer notice to all the opposite parties, stating  that the equipment went on mal functioning/nonfunctioning from the very beginning and that fact was informed the 2^nd opposite party on several times.  But the opposite parties  have not repaired the same nor sent any reply notice.The disputed power generator is currently not working due to damage in controlling and monitoring module (HMI) for the generator system  that the said damage occurred due to  keeping of the generator system in  ideal/non-working condition for a long period. It is also an undisputed fact that three major parts of the power generator has become defective and as ATS is not working HMI has become defective and as the power generator was not working for a long time the  battery has also become defective.

15.     According to PW1 the generator set was installed in an appropriate place and position as recommended by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in the presence and supervision of their service personals. But from the very beginning of the use of the equipment there were complaints even then the complainant managed to use the same in accordance with their specification and directions as per the manual issued. It is also brought out in evidence through PW1 that during functioning the diesel generator created terrific sound with failure in the automatic component which ought to have been worked without manual operation when power supply fails.  There was also serious oil leakage from the generator.  According to PW1 he had used the said generator after the date of purchase and installation only for 27 hrs.  It is also brought out in evidence that the defects of the diesel generator was brought to the notice of opposite parties 1 and 2 in time but the services rendered by them were not found fruitful, because the system went on failure repeatedly.  Hence he was not at all satisfied with the functioning of the said generator. According to PW1 he cannot use the generator purchased by him spending huge amount due to its defects.

16.     It is clear from the available materials that the generator requires mainly the replacement of ATS relay for with the customer has to pay the price of the ATS and service charge and he is ready for the same.  Ext.P6 series email communications would indicate that the complainant was ready to pay the price of the ATS and service charges but he need proper service and also provide warrantee for the ATS which is to be replaced and also requested the opposite parties to send technician with ATS.  In reply to the said mail the 2^nd opposite party has sent reply mail which is part of Ext.P6 series e-mail communication stating that rectification of ATS is not coming under warranty service. But for maintaining customer satisfaction the opposite party has responded to the call made by the complainant.

17.     It is also brought out in evidence through Ext.P6 series reply mail that in the response to the telephone call made by the complainant communicating the defect of the generator, the 2^nd opposite party assured to depute their service engineer on the next day ie.on 03.03.2015.  But as the complainant insisted for the MRP labelled ATS, the 2^nd opposite party refused to carry out replacement of ATS.  It is further stated in P6 series reply mail that the 2^nd opposite party cannot assure MRP label for the ATS.  According to the 2^nd opposite party the MRP label on the product has to be affixed by the manufacturer he is not in a position to supply such an ATS if the manufacturer does not affix the same on ATS and therefore the allegation of not attending the service according to the 2^nd opposite party is justifiable.  It is further sated in Ext.P6 series reply email that they would contact the  complainant after ascertaining the availability and pricing and also after confirming with the manufacturer.  But so far the 2^nd opposite party has not responded and  the generator was not yet repaired by replacing the ATS.

18.     It is clear from the available materials the power generator supplied by the 1^st opposite party as per Ext.P1 invoice is a monopoly product as alleged in Ext.P3 lawyer notice.  Hence there is implied contract to the effect that even after the expiry of warranty period the dealer and service agency are bound to provide “after sale service” but of course  by receiving service charges and value of spare parts if any used.  It is also brought outin evidence that the complainant has paid Rs.6,00,000/- for the disputed power  generator by believing the representation of opposite parties 1 and 2 that and it is one of the best product  available.  But the pleadings and evidence would indicate that complainant wasable to use the same for a very short period.  In the circumstances the complainant has every right to approach the opposite party 1 and 2 and  require them to cure the  defective on reasonable price and make it ready to work at the earliest. 

19.     It is also brought out in evidence through PW1 that as a customer he has  enquired about the market value of EMKO brand ATS through internet and obtained Ext.P8 series price list, wherein the maximum price offered for the ATS is  Rs.8500/- during 2015 excluding 12.5 % excise duty and 14 % VAT.  Ext.P8 would also indicate that the manufacturer of the EMKO brand ATS offered one year warranty for the product from the date of supply.  In view of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.P8  document we are of the view that if  a major part like ATS is purchased or obtained from its manufacturer they used to provide warranty for a limited period just like providing warranty given when the engine  of a car is replaced after 10-12 years of the date of purchase of the car. In the circumstances we find no merit in the 1^st contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No.1&2.

20.     According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party is  not in a position to obtain MRP labelled ATS since it is supplied by the manufacturer of the generator without affixing any MRP which is not intended  for outside sale. But Rule 6(1)(a)&(c) of the Legal Metrology(Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011 which mandates the affixing of a label containing MRP even if it is imported or supplied by the manufacturer of the main product. In the light of the above rule we find no merit in the 2^nd contention of the opposite parties.

21.     It is clear from the available materials that the Asst.Professor Department of Electronics & Communication Engineering Younus College of Engineering &Technology, Kollam was appointed as expert commissioner.  Accordingly he made the local inspection of the residence of the complainant were the disputed diesel generator was installed, verified the generator and prepared Ext.P7 report.  The said expert has been examined as PW2. The oral evidence of PW2 coupled with   Ext.P7 report would indicate that the generator was installed properly by the opposite party and it is of nationally accepted standard.  According to PW2 the generator system is currently inactive mainly due to non-working of the generator system or battery charger module.  PW2 has specifically stated in Ext.P7 that he could not find out any irregularity or improperness in the use of the machine by the complainant.   As the generator is not in a working condition he could not test the efficiency of other working parts.  PW2 has noted as item No.4in Ext.P7 that ATS module should be replaced for proper working of the generator system. 

22.     According to PW2 the expected cost of an ATS module is Rs.8500+ Tax (approximately Rs.11000/-) and it will get one year warranty.  He has also noted that the service charge of the replacing ATS would be Rs.3500+tax(approximately Rs.4200/-).  He has also noted that the cost of HMI to be replaced is Rs.20,000/-+tax and service charges as Rs.3500+tax(approximately Rs.4200).  PW2 has further stated in P7 report that the power generator system requires prime attention of the opposite party as early as possible since any electric or electronic gadget remaining non-working for a long period it would results in the damage of its components and gradually results in the damage of the entire system. PW2 has also recommended to recharge battery as early as possible.  The contesting opposite parties have not filed any objection against the above Ext.P7 expert report.  RW1 also would admit that he has no objection against P7 report.  It is brought out in evidence  during cross examination of PW2 that “ Fsâ ]cntim[-\-bnÂs¸« Sn 3 defect Dw spare parts replace sNbvXv defect clear sN¿m-hp-¶-Xm-Wv.  D]-tbm-Kn-¡m-Xn-cp-¶Xpaqe-amWv _mädn D]-tbm-K-iq-\-y-ambn t]mb-Xv.  It is clear from the available materials that the ATS was not repaired nor replaced by the opposite party No.1 and 2 who are having monopoly over and sales and service of the disputed power generator.  According to RW1 and RW2the responsibility for non-replacing the ATS in time by alleging that complainant was not ready to pay its price by claiming that the company has to replace it under warranty even though warranty period was over.  But the materials available records would  indicate that the complainant has not demanded to replace ATS under warranty without effecting any payment.  The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.P6 series email communication would clearly indicate that the complainant was ready and  willing and pay the price of the ATS and also to pay the service charges.  But the complainant insisted to get bill indicating MRP of the ATS and also warranty for the replaced ATS which is only as per usual practice and provisions of law.  It is to be pointed out that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party when they are in the witness box as RW1&2 have not denied the genuiness of P6 series e-mail communications.  Ext.P8 document would clearly indicate that EMKO brand dealing with ATS has been providing the cash bill indicating MRP and also giving the one year warranty.  In the circumstances we find no merit in contentions of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for not replacing the defective ATS especially when they are having monopoly over the sales and service over the power generator by alleging that the complainant has demanded free service as if the generator is covered by warranty. 

23.     It is also clear from the available materials including P7 report of PW2 that since the defective ATS was not replaced in time the other defects found out on the power generator occurred.  Therefore the opposite parties No.1 to 3 are expected to replace the ATS by receiving the actual MRP and reasonable service charges within a reasonable period of reporting the defect and make it workable, the failure of which definitely amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 to 3.

24.     It is clear from the available materials that since the power generator purchased from 1^st opposite party and installed at the residence of the complainant by paying a huge price worked only for a few hours and remained dead due to the defects in the ATS and getting damaged part by part and thereby the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss.  In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get the power generator repaired by the opposite parties 1 to 3 by replacing ATS and thereafter receive the MRP of ATS and reasonable service charges including excise duty and other tax applicable if any and also getting replaced/repaired the other damaged parts of the generator at the cost and risk of opposite party No.1to 3.  Points No.1 to 3 answered accordingly.

Point No.4

25.     The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant is in a helpless condition since he could not repair the power generator in person or through local mechanics because the disputed generator is monopoly product that cannot be repaired through outsiders and the spares to be replaced are not available in the open market.  The only remedy available to complainant is to get repaired the disputed generator by the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service agency of the manufacturing (opposite party No.3) company.  Hence they approached the 2^nd opposite party to do the needful. However it is clear from the available materials that both seller and service personals (opposite party 1 and 2) failed to assist the complainant customer for the effective utilization of the equipment which is a monopoly product.  According to the learned counsel for the complainant  the failure of providing  service by alleging lame excuses amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In view of the facts and circumstances available on record we fully agree with the   above argument of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is brought out in evidence that the power generator purchased from 1^st opposite party for Rs.6, 00,000/- has worked only for 27 hours and thereafter remains out of function till date.  In the circumstances there is every chance of causing financial loss and mental agony to the complainant as alleged in the complaint.Therefore the complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that Rs.25000/- will be reasonable and sufficient compensation for the mental agony sustained on account of non-working of the power generator installed at his residence.  He is also entitled to get reasonable costs from the opposite parties 1 to 3. The point answered accordingly.

Point No.5

26.     In view of the findings under points No.1 to 4, the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 shall cause the defective power generator verified by their technicians at the premises of the complainant where it is installed and ascertain the defects which are to be rectified within the 1^st 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy this order and also serve  a copy of the verification report to complainant for information. 
2. The opposite parties No. 1to 3 are directed to replace the ATS and receive the present market value (MRP)and reasonable service charges within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 shall supply cash bill indicating the MRP of the ATS and service charges to the complainant and in such event the complainant shall pay the  expenses on receipt of the bill within 3 days.
4. Opposite party No.1to 3  arefurther directed to make the  disputed power generator in a working condition by replacing or repairing the other damaged parts including battery (except ATS) at their own risk and cost within 2 months since the same damaged due to lapse and latches on their part in replacing the ATS by receiving its MRP  offered by the complainant.
5. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay  Rs.25,000/-  within the said 2 months  to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony sustained by the complainant. 
6.  The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. 

7. The complainant shall make necessary arrangements and assistance for the repair of the defective power generator by the technicians deputed by the opposite parties and shall not make any unnecessary  interference or disturbances in the process of verification, repair and replacement of the parts of the power generator as directed in this order.
8. It is also made clear that if the complainant is having any grievance regarding the replacement of ATS or repair work done by the technicians  deputed by the opposite parties he is at liberty to approach the forum by filing appropriate petition.
9.  If opposite party No.1 to 3 fails to comply with any of the above directions No. (i) to (vi) within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the complainant is at liberty  to get the disputed power generator repaired by  replacing all defective parts including ATS and make it workable and also entitled to realize the amount spent for the repair and replacement works including the cost of spare parts and compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization along with costs from opposite party No.1 to 3 jointly and severally and from their assets.
10. The 4^th opposite party is exonerated from liability.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the  06^th   day of  July   2020.

E.M.MuhammedIbrahim:Sd/-

S.SandhyaRani:Sd/-

           Stanly Harold:Sd/-

           Forwarded/by order

          Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1           :         Anilkumar

PW2           :         Riyas

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1         :         Copy of tax invoice dated 09.02.2012

Ext.P2         :         Field service report.

Ext.P3         :         Copy of  advocate notice.

Ext.P4 series:        Postal receipts

Ext.P5 series:        Acknowledgement card(2 Nos.)

Ext.P6 series:        E-mail

Ext.P7         :         Expert report

Ext.P8 series:        Price list

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

RW1           :         Ramdas Nedungadi

RW2           :         Lal Prasad  

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil

E.M.MuhammedIbrahim:Sd/-

S.SandhyaRani:Sd/-

           Stanly Harold:Sd/-

           Forwarded/by order

          Senior Superintendent