CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 08/07/2014
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/98/2014
Surendrakrishnan
S/o.Sivaraman,
Kuruppath House, : Complainant
Manopathmam,
Kizhayoor.P.O,
Pattambi,
Palakkad.
(Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)
Vs
- Saleem, Proprietor,
Royal Paints Arcade,
Perinthalmanna Road, : Respondents
Mele Pattambi 679 303.
Palakkad.
(Adv.C.P.Promod& Shiju Kuriakose)
- Sreekrishna Enterprises,
Rep.by its Authorized person,
8/2, K.K.Line No.3,
Avinashi Road, Near Fly over, Coimbatore-18,
Smt.N.Anithadevi Advocate.
(Adv.N.Anita Devi)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma.K.P, Member
The Complainant is an artist by profession and he is earning his livelihood by selling his paintings and his other Art works & creations. The Complainant purchased a branded compressor with motor and all fittings from the first opposite party based on the assurance given by the first Opposite Party about the quality and performance of the product named ‘Duro’ 8 Ltr with full set from the 1st Opposite Party’s concern on 28.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.10500/-. Complainant started using the above mentioned compressor on the date of purchase itself and it was found that while working the temperature of the compressor was going high beyond tolerable limits and due to the rise in the temperature, the filter unit attached to the compressor got damaged and the air pressure being generated was found to be insufficient for undertaking the painting works of the complainant. Complainant immediately took back the compressor and fitting to the first Opposite Party’s concern and the above mentioned defects and damages were brought to the notice of the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party after inspection was convinced about the damage and defects and on that day itself the Compressor was delivered back by the 1st Opposite Party claiming to have undertaken service, replaced Air Filter and rectified defects. Opposite Party had assured the Complainant that the problem would not recur and the Complainant can carry out all the painting work using the said Compressor. Based on the assurance given by the 1st Opposite Party, the said Compressor was put to use again by the Complainant and it is found that the defect is not rectified and that while working, the temperature of the compressor was going up considerably and the air generated is found to be in sufficient and the Complainant was not able to do the painting work properly. Again the Complainant had contacted to the 1st Opposite Party and had informed that the compressor’s defect is not rectified and though the 1st Opposite Party agreed to replace same with a more powerful compressor, he did not do the same. Not only that the complainant came to know that the compressor sold by the 1st Opposite Party is a substandard cheap model worth only less than Rs.5000/-and that even a 24 Liter capacity compressor manufactured by reputed Hitachi company is worth only Rs.12000/-. Complainant submit that the 1st Opposite Party with an intention of cheating had misrepresented regarding the quality and performance of the compressor and made the complainant purchase the same for more than double the value than it is actually worth and the same has resulted in monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant. Complainant on finding that the 1st Opposite Party is wriggling out of the liability and is not interested in redressing the grievance, had caused a lawyer notice on 15.5.2014 directing to the 1st Opposite Party to take back the defective compressor and pay back the complainant a sum of Rs.10500/-, being the consideration for the compressor paid by the complainant along with a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation for mental agony and monetary loss and also Rs.1000/- towards the expenses for sending the notice within 10 days. But the Opposite Party sent a reply putting forth false allegations. From the reply notice the complainant understands that he will not get his grievance redressed without the intervention of the Forum and hence he had filed the complaint seeking an order so as to direct the 1st Opposite Party to take back the defective product supplied and refund the sale consideration of Rs.10500/-and also to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- and compensation towards mental agony and monetary loss and also to pay sum of Rs.5000/- as the cost of litigation.
1st Opposite Party entered appearance upon notice from the forum and filed a detailed version denying all the allegations in the complaint. 1st Opposite Party admits that the complainant had approached regarding the defects and he had attended those complaints and had rectified the compressor and the complainant was satisfied. He had conducted the service as per the complainants request and had returned the compressor back to the complainant. After that the first Opposite Party was not aware of any of the complaints caused to the compressor as alleged in the complaint. The complainant had approached with certain malafide intentions so as to distort money from the Opposite Party. He had also denied the allegations that he had sold a substandard quality worth only Rs.5000/-.There is no bonafies in the complaint and he had not done any deficiency of service towards complainant. Hence the complaint had to be dismissed. He had also stated that he is only a dealer of the said compressor and the manufacturer of the compressor had to be implied as a necessary party. Complainant filed application for furnishing details of the manufacturer by the 1st Opposite Party and accordingly 1st Opposite Party furnished the details. Complainant filed another application to implead the manufacturer as supplemental 2nd Opposite Party. Application was allowed and notice was issue to supplemental 2nd Opposite Party.
2nd Opposite Party entered appearance and submits that basically he did not have any transaction with the Complainant and has not manufactured the compressor or by other product for this matter. Therefore this 2nd Opposite Party does not no as to about which compressor the Complainant is referring about. The 2nd Opposite Party does not know who is the manufacturer of the compressor. Again the Complainant filed application calling upon 1st Opposite Party to furnish the correct address of the manufacture. 1st Opposite Party filed a statement stating that they had no knowledge about another manufacturer. Affidavit was also filed to that effect. Complainant filed application for appointment of expert commissioner for checking the functioning of the compressor and report about the function. Application was allowed and Commissioner was appointed to inspect the compressor and filed a detail report. Opposite Party filed objections to the Commission report . Both Complainant as well as 2nd Opposite Party filed proof affidavits. Exts. A1-A6 was marked from the part of the Complainant. Commission’s report was marked Ext.C1. Exts.B1-B2 was marked from the part of the 2nd Opposite Party. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.
Issues that arises for consideration are
1.Whether there is any defect with regard to the alleged compressor?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the first Opposite Party?
3. If so what are the reliefs and cost?
We have perused the documents as well as affidavits filed before the Forum. Ext.C1 is the Commission report filed by the Expert Commissioner after inspecting the compressor According to the Ext.C1 report it is stated that it is unable to build up the necessary pressure required for spray painting. The pressure goes down as the machine is working. Excess heat was generated at the motor surface and it was so high that it may cause physical damage of the components, if not properly controlled. This happens because of the malfunctioning of a thermal control switch attached the motor, which controls the temperature. The product quality was poor and the cost of the product is not proportionate. According to the Commissioner, the product is not usable on a regular basis and is of poor quality. From Ext.A1 it is obvious that the complainant had purchased the said compressor from 1st Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.10500/- and it bears one year warranty. The Complainant had stated that he could not complete the works undertaken by him on time as he is not equipped with a properly working compressor and the same has effected his reputation. Since he was not in a position to take up new work he had to purchase another compressor having a capacity of 24 Litres manufactured by Hitachi by spending a sum of Rs.12500/- for completing the pending work and also for taking up new assignments. This is evident from Exts.A2&A6. The 1st Opposite Party had stated that he is only a dealer and the compressor was manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party who was later impleaded as supplemental 2nd Opposite Paryt. But 2nd Opposite Party had disowned the liability and had stated that they had not manufactured the said compressor. 1st Opposite Party had filed an affidavit to the effect that he does not no another manufacturer excepting 2nd Opposite Party. Since 2nd Opposite Party had not admitted the said version, 1st Opposite Party is bound to supply the address of the real manufacturer. Without knowing the real manufacturer, 1st Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service towards the Complainant. In view of the above observations the complaint is allowed. Hence, we direct the 1st Opposite Party to take back the defective product supplied to the complainant and to refund the sale consideration of Rs.10500/-(Rupees ten thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only)towards mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant. We also direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only)toward cost of this litigation. Complaint is allowed as above. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the Complainant is entitled to get 6% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of August 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Bill issued by OP dtd 28-01-2014
Ext.A2 –Owner’s Manual
Ext.A3 series-Copy of Lawyer’s notice & postal receipt dated 15/5/2014
Ext.A4-Acknowledgement Card dtd 17/5/2014
Ext.A5-Reply Notice
Ext.A6-Bill regarding purchase of new compressor
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1-Form B certificate dtd 24.5.2004 being C.S.T.R.C No.268615
Ext.B2-Form D Certificate dtd 2.1.2007
Commission Report
C1- Venkitesh.K.S
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1-Surendrakrishnan.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.3000/-as cost
