Date of Filing      : 19.03.2019

                                                                                                                               Date of Disposal: 10.06.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                            .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                      ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com,                                                                               ….. MEMBER-II

CC. No.21/2019

THIS FRIDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr.S.Sarangan,

S/o.Singara Reddy,

No.375, Pillaiyar Koil Street,

Banikavanoor Village, Sivanvoyal Post,

Thiruvallur Taluk and District.                                   ……Complainant.

                                                 //Vs//

1.The Managing Director,

   S.V.Rangasamy and Company Private Limited,

   No.80 (Old No.150) Ground Floor,

   Kothari Apartments,

   Venkatarangam Pillai Street,

   Triplicane, Chennai -49.

2.The Managing Director, ASPEE House,

   B.J.Patel Road, malad (West), Mumbai,

   Maharashtra – 400 064.

3.Mr.Saravanan, S/o.Vasu,

   Palavedu Village,

   Thiruvallur Taluk & District.                             …..opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant    :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan , Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties   :   Mrs V.V.Alamelu, Advocate.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 23.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mrs.V.Alamelu Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties and upon hearing the arguments of the both sides and upon perusing the documents and evidences, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

The present complaint was filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective machine to the complainant along with a prayer to replace the defective machine with a brand new machine or to refund Rs.3,200/- along with 12% interest from the date of purchase and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

The complainant possessing agricultural properties and an agriculturalist by profession decided to purchase an Electro Battery Operated Sprayer for spraying pesticides in his field for his crops on 22.06.2017.  The complainant purchased AEL001/8 AHBR (Aspee Electro Battery operated sprayer with 8BH) for a sum of Rs.3200/-.  However the machine was not properly working due to some manufacturing defects and due to the defective machine the pesticides were not properly sprayed and the crops were distorted due to which the complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant informed the opposite parties attended by them but the manufacturing defect could not be rectified.  Hence the present complaint was filed.

Defense of Opposite Parties by way of Written Version:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version and denied all the allegations except the purchase the AEL001/8 AHBR (Aspee Electro Battery operated sprayer with 8BH) for a sum of Rs.3200/-.  It is submitted by the opposite parties that they explained the features of the Electro Battery Operated Sprayer and it’s functioned to the complainant and he was satisfied with the performance of the machine. They admitted that a mechanic was also sent on request by the complainant who attended the machine and demonstrated its functioning in the field.  They denied that the complainant suffered 2,00,000/- loss due to the machine.  The opposite parties also submitted that after delivery of the machine the complainant used the machine extensively and after his agricultural works were over with a malafide intention wanted to return the machine.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant in proof of his submission filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.A1 to A4;

The opposite parties in proof of their submissions filed proof affidavit and Marked documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2;

Point for consideration:

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant in supplying a defective Electro Battery Operated Sprayer with manufacturing defect?

Point

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in proof of his alligations;

1. Sprayer purchase Bill dated 22.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties dated 21.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Reply notice sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant’s counsel dated 10.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Warranty Card with Manual was marked as Ex.A4.

 On the side of the opposite parties the following documents were filed:

1. Authorisation letter dated 02.12.2019 was marked as Ex.B1;
2. Authorisation letter dated 06.02.2020 was marked as Ex.B2;

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that from the date of purchase i.e. on 22.06.2017 the AEL001/8 AHBR (Aspee Electro Battery operated sprayer with 8BH) was not functioning properly and the machine was given six months warranty from the date of purchase vide document Ex.A4.  Whereas the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complaint was made after one year i.e. after the expiry of the warranty period.   It is further argued that when it has been specifically instructed to use only liquid form of pesticides, the complainant had used powder form against the advice and hence they cannot be made liable for the defect if any had arisen. 

We perused the pleadings and documents submitted by both the parties.  The complainant had submitted the Instruction Manual provided at the time of purchase of the AEL001/8 AHBR (Aspee Electro Battery operated sprayer with 8BH).  In that Manual the warranty given by the opposite parties has been mentioned as “the warranty given by ASPEE equipment is against faulty material and bad workmanship or constructional failure for a period of six months from the date of supply.  Should any complaint arise there on within this period due to the above causes the company may consider, at its discretion, to repair/replace the part/assembly, if there is any defect and requires replacement at our option, ex works or at the Dealer’s place without any transportation charges.”

The opposite parties’ specific defence was that the complainant had operated the machine against the advice given at the time of delivery of the product. They in support of their contention has filed the proof affidavit of the technician who had deposed that the pesticide used in the sprayer shall be used only in liquid form and a detailed instruction was given to the complainant at the time of delivery and at the time of free inspection of the machine.  It is stated by him as “Further it has been stated that instruction was given in the machine itself in the form of sticker as “ Do not use wettable powder with this sprayer” and “Do not spray caustic or corrosive solution” in the hand sprayer,  powder form of pesticides can be used in hand sprayer but in battery operated sprayer, powder form of pesticide could not be used and prohibited because powder will be stored in suction filter and it may slowly goes to the motor and pump which resultantly affects the motor and thereby increase the heat while running and sometime the coil will be melt.  When I inspected the subject machine, the complainant had used the powder form of pesticides and it stored in the suction pipe and motor also attacked.  I have cleaned the suction pipe and specifically informed the complainant not to use powder form of pesticides and requested to use only liquid form pesticides in battery operated sprayer”.  Thus the technician had stated that because of the user fault the company cannot be held liable. Further with regard to charging of the battery it was stated even at the time of delivery it was advised that for charging purpose only single phase line was to be used and not 3 phase current.  He has also admitted that if the above instructions were not followed certainly the sprayer will develop non-functioning.  It is seen that he informed the complainant to follow the above instructions when he inspected the machine, thus we see that the machine though purchased on 22.06.2017 the complainant had not specifically stated the date on which the machine started giving trouble, so that it could be decided whether the complaint is covered within the warranty period.  The complainant has not disputed the stand taken by the opposite parties that the complainant used powder form of pesticides as per the version of the technician belonging to the opposite parties. No proof like job card was produced by the complainant’s side to show that the machine went into default and the complainant has given a complaint and the same was rectified by the technician.  Orally it is submitted by the counsel for complainant that the machine was given for repair to the opposite parties and it was still lying with them.  But the same seem to be a bald version without any proof.  The complainant also had failed to take any steps to inspect the product by some technical experts to prove that it suffers with some manufacturing defects. In such circumstances we have no other option but to conclude that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the product supplied to him had some manufacturing defects. The point is answered accordingly holding that no deficiency in service is proved against the opposite parties. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10^st day of June 2022.

                                                                                                                                               Sd/-

      Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                              MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

  List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

  Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT