cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of October 2012.
Filed on : 05/03/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 128/2012
Between
Balakrishnan K.P., : Complainant
Kumarakathu Veedu, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, court road,
North Janatha road, Muvattupuzha)
Palarivattom P.O.,
Kochi-682 025.
And
1. Southern Ceramics & : Opposite parties
Sanitory Centre, Aanari (By Adv. Sujith Somasekharan,
Buildings, Thekkenada, M/s. K.V.G. Associates,
Vyikom-686 142.
2. CRI Pumps Pvt. Ltd., (By Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan)
48/17486, Perumpoota road,
(perumpotta road ) Azad
Plaza, Elamakkara,
Kochi-682 026.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 07/03/2011 the complainant purchased a pressure pump from the 1st opposite party for the convenient use of shower panel and solar panel at a price of Rs.11,874.57. The complainant started to reside in the house in which the pump was installed on
01-07-2011. During this period the complainant found that the pressure pump is working continuously. Accordingly the complainant intimated the 1st opposite party regarding the complaint. They failed to rectify the defect. In August 2011 the technician of the 2nd opposite party repaired the pressure pump. But after 2 days the very same defect recurred. In spite of earnest efforts on the part of the complainant the technician examined the pump set only on 29-12-2012. After two weeks the technician replaced the tank. However on 25-02-2012 the pump set again failed. Though the complainant intimated the matter to the opposite party they failed to heed. On 04-03-2012 the complainant caused a letter to the opposite party demanding refund of the price of the pump set. But there was no response. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- including the price of the pump set.
2. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:
When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party with regard to the pump manufactured by them they attended to the complaint and cured the defects. The complainant purchased the pump set from the 1st opposite party on 07-03-2011. The 2nd opposite party received a complaint on 20-10-2011 and on 21-10-2011 itself the 2nd opposite party sent their technician to examine the pump set. The technician duly repaired the defect of the pump set on 14-12-2011. On 02-03-2012 the complainant lodged another complaint and the representative of the 2nd opposite party visited the complainant’s premises with a new tank. But the complainant was not there and as per the direction of the complainant the 2nd opposite party kept the tank in the nearby house. Since there was no response for 4 days, the 2nd opposite party was forced to take back the tank. Subsequently the complainant opted to file this complaint. The defect which happened was due to misuse of the pump set by the complainant. There is no manufacturing defect to the product supplied to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief as prayed for.
3. In spite of receipt of notice from this Forum the first opposite party opted to remain absent for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked. The witness for the 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 2nd opposite party.
4. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties.
5. Point No. i. Ext. A8 goes to show that the complainant purchased a pressure pump from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. One year warranty has been provided by the 2nd opposite party evidenced by Ext. B2 warranty conditions. The 2nd opposite party the manufacturer in their version admitted that on 20-10-2011, 15-12-2011 and on 02-03-2012 they received complaints from the complainant and on the 1st two occasions they rectified the defects highlighted by the complainant and on the last occasion they decided to replace the tank of the pump but could not materialize due to non co-operation of the complainant . It is pertinent to note that the above defects were caused within the warranty period and on the last occasion the 2nd opposite party was prepared to replace the tank which goes to show that the pump set suffers from inherent defects even within the warranty period. The 2nd opposite party vehemently contented that there is no expert evidence in support of the contentions of the complainant. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and thus they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reveneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s. KLM Rogal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 2000 SAR (Civil) 40.
6. Evidently time and again the complainant had to approach the opposite parties to get the defects of the pump set rectified. Being a consumer the complainant is entitled to get a hastle free machine especially since it is a household article. The complainant had to suffer lot of inconveniences due to the recurring defects of the machine. The supply of a defective household article is a deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. In view of that matter we need not rely on the above decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court since materially matters differ. In the above circumstances we are of the firm view that the complainant is entitled to get a defect free pump set from the opposite parties.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally either replace the pump set as per Ext. A8 invoice or to refund its price together with 12% interest p.a. from the date of purchase till realization. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally dismantle the defective machine at their cost and install the new one to the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite parties are at liberty to take back the defective pump set at their cost.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of cash bill dt.14/15/2012
A2 : Copy of receipt dt. 29/04/2012
A3 : Copy of bill dt. 14/05/2011
A4 : Copy of bill dt. 10/05/2012
A5 : Copy of bill dt. 06-01-2012
A6 : Copy of A.D. card
A7 : Copy of warranty
A8 : Copy of estimate
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of complaint register
B2 : Copy of warranty conditions
Depositions:
PW1 : Balakrishnan. K.P.
DW1 : R. Sampath Kumar
