Date of filing : 27-11-07 Date of order : 22-04-09 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.66/07 Dated this, the 22nd day of April 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER T.K. Rajani, W/o. Prasad, R/at Thadiyanvalappu, } Complainant Po. Kanhiradukkam, Hosdurg Taluk. (In person) 1. Secretary, Kasaragod Dist. Lorry Operators } Opposite parties Co-op. Society, Kottachery, Kanhangad. (Adv. Subhash Bozz, Kasaragod) 2. Manager, Prompt Technologies, 29/17.E. Opp: Lane No.3. TOC –H School Road, Vyttila, Kochi.19. (Adv. Jiji, Kanhangad) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Case of the complainant T.K. Rajani, is that the speed governor purchased through opposite party No.1 distributed by Prompt Technologies, Kochi and manufactured by Eastern Steel Industries became defective within the warranty period and as a result the vehicle could not be operated and thereby sustained loss. Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.40,800/- on different counts. 2. Opposite party No.1 the Kasaragod District Lorry Operators Co-operative Society filed version. According to them they had intimated the prompt technologies about the defects of the some of the speed governors. But the complainant has not intimated any such complaints to the Ist opposite party. But when they came to know about the complaint it was intimated to prompt technologies. As per the terms of purchase the said device the second opposite party prompt technologies is liable to rectify the defects. 3. The complaint is filed by the complainant directly. Hence initially one Eastern Steel Industries was made as second opposite party. Notice issued to said address was returned unserved for the reason. ‘No such addressee’. Later complainant filed a petition to alter the name of the 2nd opposite party as the Proprietor, Prompt Technologies on the ground that the Eastern Steel Industries at Kochi were using both the names. Hence prompt technologies is made as second opposite party and notice was issued to prompt technologies in the same address in which the earlier notice to M/s Eastern Steel Industries was issued. 4. Prompt technologies appeared and filed their version. According to them they were the wholesale dealers of the speed governor manufactured by M/s Eastern Steel Industries, Mumbai. M/s Eastern Steel Industries closed their office at Kochi two years back and now doing the business directly from Mumbai. 5. They admit that they have received a complaint on 16-07-07 from opposite party No.1 and accordingly on the same day the mechanic replaced the defective speed governor. Thereafter the complainant had not made any complaints about the speed governor. The defects of the speed governor occurred on 13-04-07 and 25-04-07 were not intimated to 2nd opposite party on the to complaint received they had made speedier follow up or rectified the defects. They are also ready to rectify the defect of the speed governor if there is any mistake. Hence there is no deficiency in service. 6. Complainant’s authorized representative her father examined as PW1. Exts A1 to A4 marked. Both sides heard. 7. Eventhough the second opposite party has filed a petition to implead M/s Eastern Steel Industries, Mumbai as a party to the proceedings being the manufacturer we are not inclined to implead them in the party since the complainant have no privity of contract with M/s Eastern Steel Industries, Mumbai. The complainant’s contract is with the dealer from whom he buys the product. Now whether the business relationship with the dealer and the manufacturer is on agency basis or on principal to principal basis is also not disclosed by the dealer. Moreover opposite party No.2 in their version has stated that they had replaced the speed governor on receipt of complaint about the defects of the speed governor. This replacement eventhough denied by the complainant would makes it clear that opposite party No.2 is not only acting as a dealer but he is vested with some other responsibilities of after sales services also. 8. Since the defects in speed governor carrying a warranty not satisfactorily rectified by opposite party No.2 during the warranty period, the complainant would be treated as a consumer of the service envisaged under the warranty in view of the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of View Tech Imajins Equipment Ltd. V. CMC Ltd reported in 2008 CTJ 574(CP) NCDRC. 9. The complainant’s agent has submitted that the speed governor is not replaced and if so there would have been a new number of speed governor and that is not mentioned by them. Further if the speed governor is replaced the new number of speed governor with its fitment certificate has to be communicated to the concerned Registering Authority. Opposite party No.2 has not produced any thing to prove these aspects. Interestingly the opposite party No.2 had taken a contention in their version that complainant filed this complaint on 5-12-07 i.e. just few days prior to the expiry time of the warranty given to the speed governor. The date of purchase of the speed governor was on 7-12-06 and the complaint is filed on 5-12-07. At the same time it is also the case of opposite party No.2 that they had replaced the speed governor with a new one on 16-07-07. If so the warranty of the same should have been extended to another one year from 16-07-07. So the contention of opposite party No.2 that the complaint is filed just few days prior to the expiry of warranty makes it clear that they have not replaced the speed governor on 16-07-07 as contended. 10. Both the contradictory statement in the version makes it clear that the opposite party No.2 miserably failed to extent their after sales services and also committed unfair trade practice. 11. The complainant has submitted that due to the defect of the speed governor he compelled to stop it’s daily services for 4 days and since the vehicle is frequently breaks it trip the passengers hesitate to travel in the bus. We find some force in this argument. 12. Compensation claimed by the complainant is Rs.30,000/- due to the frequent stoppage of the vehicle due to the defect of the speed governor. The purchase value of the speed governor is Rs.10,800/-. The compensation claimed by the complainant is three times higher than that of the speed governor that is quite unreasonable. Therefore we direct the Proprietor, Prompt Technologies, Kochi to take back the speed governor and refund Rs.10,800/- the purchase price of the speed governor with a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the loss and sufferings caused to the complainant. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost of these proceedings Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 7-12-06 Photocopy of cash bill A2. 7-12-06 photocopy of fitment certificate A3.Warranty A4.22-7-07 copy of letter sent by complainant to Ist OP. PW1.Rajkumar Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
