Dtd.19.08.2024                                            A/445/2023

O R D E R

          BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by OP.1/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.25.01.2023 passed in CC/25/2020 on the file of Chikkamagaluru District Commission. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. This is an appeal filed by one Mr.Sunil S/o Ithappa, Proprietor of Sharanya Enterprises, Chikkamagaluru. It is therefore we have to construe that, he is none other OP.1 in consumer complaint. The District Commission heard the Complainant and Mr.Sunil, who is arrayed as OP.1, while OPs.2 & 3 are placed exparte and in such circumstances, held an enquiry and directed OP.1 to pay Rs.15,000/- received from Complainant towards solar water heater along with interest at 8% p.a. from 21.05.2020 till repayment and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within one month, failing which, to pay interest at 6% p.a. on such amount. Aggrieved by this order Mr.Sunil/OP.1 filed this appeal U/s.41 of CPA 2019 and had failed to deposit 50% of the award amount to entertain the appeal. This appeal is received on 10.03.2023 through advocate and the office has raised objection.4 – As per CPA 2019, 50% of statutory deposit has not deposited and in compliance of the said objections, he has deposited Rs.16,445/-.  We have examined the appeal memo and impugned order. Now to decide on this appeal, whether impugned order does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?
3. It is not in dispute that, Complainant has purchased solar water heater from OP.1 on 13.06.2015 for Rs.24,793/-. OP.2 is manufacturer, while OP.3 is their registered office. The solar water heater was sold with five years guarantee. The complainant had alleged solar water heater    started rusting, resulted in leakage of water in the month of November 2019 and by then almost 4 years 5 months are over and period of warranty or guarantee to be expire is almost had approached within couple of months. In other words, he had used the said solar water heater for a period of 4 years 5 months of time. In such circumstances, District Commission held OP.1 is liable to pay Rs.15,000/-. It is to be noted herein, it is not known whether 5 years of guarantee was extended or it was warrantee. According to the Complainant, solar water heater is defective and if so, manufacturer is bound to rectify, yet the District Commission, wrongly dismissed the complaint against manufacturer/OPs.2 & 3 without recording any sound reasons. Anyhow, the solar water heater was sold by OP.1 and his liability also cannot be exonerated considering the materials placed on record. In our view, and in consideration of the doctrine of proportionality, considering the usage and the period of warranty or guarantee,  award of   Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.2500/- towards compensation for the mental agony,  hardship and litigation cost,  would meet the ends of justice.  In such view of the matter, we proceed to allow the appeal in part. Consequently modified the impugned order dtd.25.01.2023 passed in CC/25/2020 and directed OP.1 to 3 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the loss/damages caused to the Complainant on account of solar water heater rusted resulting in leakage of water and do pay Rs.2,500/- towards cost of litigation. It is hereby directed the OP.1/seller to pay award amount to the complainant and recover it from OPs.2 & 3.

4. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
5. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*