CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 17/11/11

CC / 186/2011

K.Abdul Majeed,

S/o.K.Hamsa,Karunakurssi (H), - Complainant

PO Changaleeri, Perumbadari,

Palakkad- 678 762

(BY ADV.M.Muhammed Musthafa)

Vs

1. Subramanian,

Kalkhi Electros, Hospital Junction,

Mannarkkad P.O, Palakkad- 678 582

(BY ADV John John)

2. M/s.Texmo Industries,

H.O Mettupalayam Road,

G.N.Mill Post, Coimbatore-29 - Opposite parties

Tamilnadu

Represented by its Managing Director,

(BY ADV John John)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

Brief facts of the complaint:

Complainant has purchased a Taro 1.5 HP Single Phase submersible model No.SS 8030 product serial No.55101015038 motor pump set from the 1^st opposite party, manufactured by 2^nd opposite party for irrigation and domestic purpose with two years warranty. Even though motor has been fitted it was not functioning. Complainant informed this matter to the 1^st opposite party. An electrician from 1^st opposite party came and made it functioning. After two days the machine became inactive. After one week the electrician came and activated pump set by using an additional capacitor. Due to using additional capacitor the wiring got damaged. So the complainant asked to replace the motor pump set. But the 1^st opposite party refused the same as the packet is opened that they cannot change but they will repair it free of cost whenever it became defective as it has got warranty. The motor has repaired 10 times within 8 months. Motor pump again defective by 2010 October. At that time house construction was going on as complained continuously me from the company came and informed that this will not be corrected from here and it has to be sent to the service centre of Texmo company at Ernakulam. Accordingly the motor representative of the company, motor was dismantled and taken away in the beginning of November 2010. Informed that it will be repaired and sent back within a week. But they did not do so. Being holidays relatives came and suffered much. The damaged wiring has to be connected by re-wiring and by purchasing ELCB. An engineer of Texmo company informed the complainant to purchase a new motor from 1^st opposite party . Accordingly the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to get a new motor. But in the 1^st opposite party shop there was no stock of the motor of the concerned company. As the new motor was not received the engineer from Ernakulam informed that the defective motor will repaired immediately and send back. The motor was filled and additional capacitor was removed. Again the motor became inactive. At last on 30.8.11 an electrician of the company named Rejimon has came. He brought a new panel board is used.  The price of the panel board would be Rs.1700/-. After paying the amount the motor was rectified by using the new panel board motor is functioning without much problems.

Due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties the complainant has suffered mental agony and monitory loss. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to replace the old motor pump set with a new one along with 2 year warranty and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions.  1^st opposite party contents that the complainant has not purchased motor pump set of Texmo 1.5 H.P Model No.SS.8030 from their shop. The complainant has purchased the above said motor from Kerala Agro Industries Corporation, Coimbatore Road, Palakkad through the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kumaramputhur, Mannarkkad. The grievance of the complainant relates to the manufacturing defects of the Motor Pump set and hence M/s.Texmo Industries is the authority, who is to either repair the motor pump set or replace it as found necessary. The 1^st opposite party had supplied the said motor pump set to Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. So the 1^st opposite party has no liability to attend the complaints of the complainant. Eventhough there is no liability, the 1^st opposite party attended timely and done all the possible repair works. 1^st opposite party is only a wholesale dealer who has nothing to do with the customers who are purchasing the motor pump set. There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

2^nd opposite party contents that the motor was not properly working during the first installation done by the electrician appointed by the complainant due to the reason that the electrician was not qualified person. On the request made by the complainant a qualified electrician sent by the 1^st opposite party re-installed the above said motor pump set and made it in working condition. Above said electrician warned the complainant about the deficiency in the wiring and advised the complainant to use proper gaged separate wiring and panel board for 1.5 HP Motor Pump set. If there is any deficiency in wiring or panel Board it will cause damage to the motor pump set. The complainant stated that he managed to run the motor by using additional capacitor. Since the complainant used high gaged wire in the fuse, even if there is any defect in the wiring on panel board the fuse will not automatically cut off. It caused to the damage of the motor pump set. The complainant repaired the motor pump set with the help of a electrician who is not an authorised technician of the opposite parties. The above said act of the complainant is one of the violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty. Complainant also states that after re-wiring and re installation of new panel board, the said pump set is working properly. It shows that the problem is not with the above said pump set but with wiring and panel board. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B2 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard both parties and gone through the documents on record.

Issues to be considered are:

I. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

II. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issues No.I & II

The complainant had purchased a 1.5 HP Single Phase Sub Mersible Motor Pump set model No.SS.8030 from the 1^st opposite party , the product of 2^nd opposite party . Though the motor pump set was fitted by the electrician it was not properly working. As per the information given by the complainant an electrician from 1^st opposite party fitted the motor pump set and made it in a working condition. After two days the motor again stopped its functioning. Representatives from 2^nd opposite party came and taken away the motor pump sent to the company and informed that it will be repaired within a week. Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party intimated the complainant that he can take a new motor pump set from the 1^st opposite party . But the complainant did not get the same as the 1^st opposite party is not having such motor pump set at that time. The complainant again contacted the 2^nd opposite party and one Mr.Rejimon, electrician of the 2^nd opposite party fixed a new panel board and motor pump set is working without much problems. For this purpose the complainant has spent Rs.1700/- as the cost of the panel board.

Due to the above said reasons the complainant claims that he is entitled to get the disputed motor pump set replaced with a new one with 2 years warranty and Rs.50,000/- for compensation and monitory loss.

From the complainant itself it can be understand that the person who installed the motor pump set for the first time is not an authorised electrician of the opposite parties. When the motor was not functioning after the first installation the authorised electrician from 1^st opposite party came and fitted the same and made it in working condition. As per the Ext.A1 document “the pump set must have been installed by a Texmo Industries authorised dealer and maintained properly”. The complainant stated that one representative from 2^nd opposite party came and taken away the motor pump set to their company and made delay of 1 month in giving back the motor pump set etc are not supported by documents. Complainant also stated that one Mr.Rejimon from 2^nd opposite party came with a new panel Board and fitted the same. There is no document to show that Mr.Rejimon is the authorised agent of the 2^nd opposite party. Moreover no steps have been taken to prove the defects of the Motor Pump.

Complainant alleges that the electrician from 1^st opposite party came and fitted an additional capacitor to working the motor pump. Due to that action wiring became collapsed. The opposite party has no case that the said electrician is not their authorised electrician. In the version submitted by the 2^nd opposite party contents that the electrician from 1^st opposite party informed the complainant about the insufficient wiring methods. But nothing is mentioned in the version of opposite parties. If the opposite parties have informed the same earlier the complainant can taken sufficient arrangements for working the motor pump set. Due to the fitting of additional capacitor the complainant spent an amount of Rs.5,400/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred only). It is evident from Ext.A3 document. Eventhough the complainant has spent this amount it is essential for the smooth functioning of the motor pump set. So that the complete liability can't be attributed on the opposite parties. 2^nd opposite party also made delay in giving back the motor after repairing.

From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in fitting the additional capacitor and delay in giving back the motor pump set after repairing.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 22^nd day of June, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Warranty Card (Original) dt.24.3.10 of Texmo Industries.

Ext.A2 – Estimate dt.24/03/2010 (Original)

Ext. A3 – Invoice of Kohinoor Agencies dt.7/10/2010.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 - Tax Invoice of Kalkhi Electros (Photocopy) dt.24/03/2010.

Ext.B2 - Retail Invoice of The Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd dt.25/03/2010(copy)

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.