BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 19^thDAY OF OCTOBER 2024

ORDER

1. SMT. K. ANITA SHIVKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction to OPs to refund amount of Rs.16,699/- with interest of 18% from date of purchase, directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the mental agony and damages suffered by complainant and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of the case:

Complainant runs a hostel where more than 50 students stays. OP1 is the agent of OP2 Company where the OP1 sells the product of OP No.2. For the requirement of water lifting to the hostel, complainant approached OP1 for purchasing bore well pump for the hostel. OP No.1 advised complainant to purchase TEXMO Motor by assuring that motor would fulfill the needs of complainant and its durability. Accordingly complainant purchased Texmo Motor pump from OP1 by paying Rs.16,699/- and the same has been installed as per the instruction of OP1. OP1 has issued Tax Invoice dated 16/01/2023 for the purchase of the pump. Complainant stated that the motor performance not as promised by OP1 and eventually the motor stopped working. As a result of it complainant approached OP1 and explained all the problems and its non-performance to OP1, not taken serious by OP1. After several attempts made by the complainant, OP convinced with the problem and instruction the complainant to handover the motor to him, so he could place the motor for service. After returning the motor, OP1 instructed the complainant to buy new motor and assured him that the money for purchasing the first motor would be refunded, once the company approach the defective product. As per the assurance given by OP1 complainant bought second motor by paying full payment. Complainant approached several times to OP1 to get his money refund. OP was so negligent in rectifying issue and deliberately ignoring complainant by giving one or the other reason. He also tried to contact customer care of OP manufacture unit, after obtaining all the details of the issue OP No.2 also fail to give clarity of the status of the complaint raised. Complainant even raised his complaint before the OP NO.2, is neither updated current status of the problem nor try to resolve it.

3. Complainant being a senior citizen aged of 82 years regularly following up the issue and decided to proceed legally. Subsequently complainant issued legal notice on 10/03/2023 to both the parties, calling upon OPs to solve the issue and sought for the refund of motor amounts of Rs.16,699/- with interest of 18% per annum. He also claimed damages of Rs.1,50,000/-. Though the legal notices duly served on OPs, not responded to legal notice and also not compiled the claim of the complainant.

4. Complainant stated that OPs clearly defaulted to resolve his problems and caused inconvenience and hardship to the students who are inmates of the hostel. Therefore, complainant approached this commission for the above said reliefs from OPs.

5. Notice sent to OPs 1 and 2. Even after the notice duly served on OP No.2, was absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP2 placed Ex-parte. OP1 represented through its counsel and filed its statement of objections. OP1 admitted that he supplied the motor pump to the complainant and issued bill after his satisfaction. Hetaken contention that he is only a stockiest / agent for Texmo Motors and OP1 is the manufacturer of the said motor pump. OP1 will supply the goods to the required purchaser, will have only access for the sale of goods to the required customer and quality check, working condition of the good etc, will not be known to OP1 if any fault and otherwise on working condition of the item / goods supplied, the same shall be sent to OP2 for the suitable rectification and repairs. OP No.1 denied the allegation of the complainant made in the complaint but admitted that complainant handed over the pump to OP1 for repairs and rectification within the warranty period. On that basis OP1 collected the defective motor pump from complainant in turn sent to OP2 for suitable repairs and rectification OP1 agreed to carryout his obligations as per the terms and conditions provided under the warranty period. In view of the warranty attached to the product supplied to the complainant OP1 received the same.

6. OP1 denied that the allegations made by the complainant for the purchase of the new motor in place of the defective motor. OP taken stand that the averments in the complaint are only pile, concocted. OP1 also taken contention that when OP1 has agreed to rectify the motor pump the question of approaching OP2 doesn’t arise and also OP2 was not proper party to the proceedings.

7. OP1 had voluntarily collected the pump for getting the same rectified after the suitable repairs and being found the same in working condition. The same has been informed to the complainant to receive the same after its rectification. Without any proper reason complainant avoided to collect the repaired motor pump from OP1 and filed this complaint frivolously. Therefore the pump is lying with the OP1 after suitable repair and same is the still lying in the shop of OP1. Complainant has filed this complaint in greed of the gain and in spite of the product being a good working condition complainant has not come forward to collect the same. Hence OP1 discharged its duty as an agent and the stocks of OP2 and rectify the defects as a dealer, has not caused any deficiency in service. In spite of the repairs with false allegations complainant filed this complaint and claiming huge amount of compensation without any proper reasons.

8. At this stage complainant filed his affidavit evidence, reiterated as stated in the complaint. Along with the affidavit evidence complainant has produced 2 documents which are marked as Ex.P1 and P2. In turn OP No.1 adduced its affidavit evidence by filing affidavit along with the 2 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 and R2. Heard both the parties and perused the written arguments filed by the both parties and the documents placed in the record.

9. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

10. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

                        Point No.1:- Affirmative.

                        Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

                        Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

11. Point No.1 and 2: These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

12. After perusal of the records and the submission made by the both parties it is proved that complainant has purchased motor pump from OP1 who has issued Tax invoice dated 16/01/2023, received Rs.16,699/- which is at Ex.P1. Within short time of the purchase, complainant noticed that the said pump has defect and stopped working,which is against to the representation of OP1. Since it was under the warranty complainant brought the same to the notice of OP No.1 for rectification and repairs. After convinced by the complainant, OP1 taken motor pump to its custody for the rectification. The allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are denied by the OP1 mainly that told to buy new motor pump if any inconvenience caused to complainant but in the complaint, complainant stated that OP has told to refund the amount immediately after the defect in product is confirmed by OP2 but it is denied by OP1.

13. It is pertinent to note that complainant has raised complaint, OP 1 and 2 about the misfunctioning of the motor has caused mental agony, inconvenience to hostel inmates of 50 students.  Without putting any efforts, OP No.1 and 2, not resolved the grievance and has not replied to the inconvenience caused to the complainant.In the version of OP1 stated that motor pump is rectified, is ready to handover to the complainant which is informed to him but complaint has not come forward to recollect the repaired motor pump. OP1 also stated still it is lying in the shop of OP No.1 and ready to handover the motor to the complainant. In our considered view, OP1 has not produced any iota of evidence to prove the rectified pump is ready, is in good working condition, is informed to the complainant. If it is so, OP1 could sent a letter or notice to the complainant for collection of motor pump,which is ready without any defects. OP1 has not done so. It is not communicated to the complainant. Complainant has purchased second motor pump on the assurance that the amount will be refunded since it was under the warranty period. OP 1 and 2 has not resolved his problem nor refunded the amount has assured. With no option, complainant has filed this complaint before this commission and sought the relief. Complainant has already purchased the second motor pump for his convenience which was very much needed product to run the hostel.

14. Complainant has sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the damages it seems to be exorbitant. Therefore,complainant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards compensation along with refund of amount Rs.16,699/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e, 10/03/2023 and Rs.5,000/- towards cost and litigation, for no reason OP1 has madecomplainant to approach this commission  by incurring money on litigation. On the above reasons we answer point No.  1 & 2 accordingly.

15. Point No.3: In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

1. Complainant filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, is allowed in part.

2. OPs 1 and 2 jointly and severally refund Rs.16,699/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 10/03/2023 till the date of this order.

3. OPs shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OPs 1 & 2 shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on above Award amount from the date of order till realization.

4. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 19^THday of OCTOBER 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;