IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 28nd day of September, 2019.
Filed on 22-01-2019
Present
Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
3. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.23/2019
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Varghese John 1. Sri. Santhosh
S/o John Proprietor Devalakshmi Agencies
Aresserril Veedu, Arthunkal, Mayithara, Cherthala.
Cherthala South Panchayath,
Ward 18. 2. The Branch Manager
Sintex BAPL Ltd
47/47/1133, Karamana
Thiruvananthapuram- 695002
O R D E R
SMT.SHOLY P.R (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant has purchased 3 cents of land near Arthunkal and built a small shed on that plot. From Devalekshmi Agencies, Mayithara, Cherthala which is run by the 1st opposite party as its proprietor, the complainant bought one water tank and its allied products for the plumbing work on 30.11.2018. The water tank is having a capacity of 500 litre labelled the name "Reno Tuf" and the 1st opposite party made the complainant to believe that the same is high quality tank of the Sintex Company. The 1st opposite party himself done the plumbing work and an amount of Rs.13,000/- was paid as per the bill amount. After the work has finished and electricity connection was taken, the complainant shifter his residence to that shed on 02.01.2019. Then for the house hold use the complainant started to fill the tank and after some time, the water tank was dented and damaged. After this incident the complainant has informed the opposite party regarding the problem but he replied that he cannot do anything with this.
Then the 1st opposite party has informed the matter to the representative of the company. A few days later a guy named Thomson has contacted the complainant and inquired about the problem faced by the complainant. The complainant has told all the details, but no one has came and inquired or any compensation has been given. Again the complainant contacted the said Thomson several times but he has not taken any action. Though the water tank costs only Rs.2,600/- as per the bill the opposite party demanded Rs.13,000/- including the plumbing work and other installation charges. Though complainant told him that the amount is a bit high, the opposite party raised his voice and said that he would destroy all the things which he has been placed there if the amount demanded is not paid. This incident caused the complainant much difficulty and mental agony and he has to spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- for purchasing another water tank and its plumbing works. So he filed the complainant for getting Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties for replacing the water tank and its fittings.
In response to the notice the 1st opposite party appeared and the 2nd opposite party remained absent.
Though the matter was taken for settlement, the opposite parties have not participated in the settlement talk hence settlement not materialised. Though sufficient opportunity was granted none of the opposite parties had filed any version.
As the opposite parties have not chosen to cross examine on the chief affidavit filed by the complainant who mounted the box, ex-parte evidence was recorded. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant.
Heard the complainant and perused the records. The unchallenged averments in the proof affidavit and Ext.A1& Ext.A2 documents would indicate that the complainant purchased a water tank and allied materials for his house hold needs from the 1st opposite party and plumbing work was done by the 1st opposite party himself. It is alleged by the complainant that after installing the water tank, the 1st day itself when it started for filling water in the tank got dented automatically and damaged. Ext.A1 photograph probabalises that allegation. The complainant further sworn in the proof affidavit that on 16.05.2019 ie, after filing this complaint the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that the damaged water tank will be replaced when the 2nd opposite party provides new tank and will be installed the same on the next day. According to PW1 / complainant the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by selling a poor quality water tank. The unchallenged averments in the complaint proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 documents would established the above grievance of the complainant. In view of the materials available on record we have no hesitation to hold that opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and there is clear deficiency in service on their part.
In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get expense for purchasing and re-installing the water tank as stated in the proof affidavit and also entitled to get cost of the proceedings.
In the result the complaint stands allowed directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- being the expense for re-installing the water tank and also pay Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realise Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation with cost of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2019.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President) :
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Photograph
Ext.A2 - Bill dated 30.11.2018, 28.11.2018
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
