O R D E R.

By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:-

          This is a complaint filed under section  12 (a) of the Consumer  Protection       Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant purchased a ceramic closet from the Opposite Party No.1, who is the authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.2,  on 07.09.2018, for a sum of Rs.14,475.19  which  includes the toilet seat also.  The closetalso comprises of an inbuilt cistern.  The Opposite Party No.2 is the  manufacturer.  At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party No.1 assured the quality of the closet  and its accessories and also described it’s functions and thereby the Complainant believed in its quality. Being a  reputed manufacturer,  the dealer has offered  life time warranty and thereby  the Complainant,  believing the description and offers made by the Opposite Party No.1  purchased the product for use in the new house of the Complainant.  But  after its installation,  the water from the inbuilt cistern  was leaking and immediately thereupon the Complainant contacted with the Opposite Party No.1 and also registered a complaint vide No.01144705.  But even after the inspection of the toilet by the service men of the 2^nd Opposite Party, the defect could not be rectified and it is understood that it is due to the manufacturing defect.  Several times the Complainant contacted with the Opposite Parties for rectification of the defect.  But it has not been  rectified so far.  The cistern is now kept idle due to the water leakage and thereby the Complainant is put to several difficulties.  The attitude of the Opposite Parties created mental agony to the Complainant.  The act of the Opposite Parties not rectifying the defect or to replace the same, amounts to deficiency in their service.  Hence the Complainant approached this Commission with the following prayers.

1. To direct the Opposite Parties to replace the defective closet and its attached       
11314569778531.  
2. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  towards compensation  to the Complainant and Rs.10,000/-  towards mental agony, to the Complainant.
3. To grant such other relief  as prayed for by the Complainant and this  Commission    deems fit to be granted and

    d)  To direct the Opposite Party to pay cost  of the complaint to the Complainant.

          3.  The Commission registered  a case and notice was served on both the Opposite parties.  Opposite Party No.1 entered  appearance, filed version, affidavit and he was examined as OPW1.  Opposite Party No.2 did not enter appearance and hence he was made       ex-parte.   In version  Opposite Party No.1 averts that  T.P. Hardware has not sold any closet or materials to the Complainant and hence  the complaint is bad for mis-jointer  of parties.  The  1^st  Opposite Party  admits that the Complainant has purchased a ceramic closet comprises of toilet seat and inbuilt water cistern manufactured by Opposite party No.2 for Rs.14,475.19  on 07.09.2010.  The  2^nd  Opposite Party is a reputed manufacturer of ceramic products and sold quality products to the Complainant;   1^st  Opposite party has not offered  life time warranty to the product and the terms of warranty is decided by the manufacturer.  1^st  Opposite Party  admits that he has provided warranty card to the Complainant at the time of purchase and it is  not  true that this Opposite Party provided life time warranty to the product.  1^st  Opposite party admits in version that there was a complaint and the same was redressed by the 2^nd  Opposite Party and at present there is no complaint pending with the closet.  1^st  Opposite party says that there are no defects as alleged  in the closet and complainant has alleged manufacturing  defect for which the Complainant has not submitted  any expert report.  1^st  Opposite Party  opined  that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and  the alleged defect in the  complaint is a tactics of the Complainant to harass the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Party is ready to comply the terms  in the  warranty.  Hence,  the Opposite Party is not liable to compensate the Complainant and the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the  complaint.  Relying on the version filed the 1^st  Opposite Party prays before the Commission to dismiss the complaint with cost of the Opposite Party in the interest of justice.

4. The Complainant has also filed  affidavit and document Ext.A1  was marked from his side.  Ext.A1 is the invoice issued by T.P Associates for the sale of item No.1 to 22  including the sale of the water closet and allied  materials costing Rs.14,475.19  to the Complainant and the Complainant was examined as PW1.

5. On a detailed perusal of the complaint,  version, affidavits filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1,  document filed  and marked  and the oral evidence adduced by both the parties,  the Commission raised the following points for consideration.

1.  Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite                                                                  

    parties?

2.  If so whether the Opposite Parties are liable  to  replace the product under

     Issue, referred in the complaint.

3.  If so,   whether  the Complainant is entitled  to get Rs.10,000/-  each towards

    compensation  and mental agony ?

4.  If so,  whether the Complainant is entitled  get  cost of the complaint from the

   Opposite  Party?

6.  For convenience  and brevity all the points  are  considered together:-  The allegation of the Complainant is that the water closet with cistern purchased from the  Opposite Party No.1 for  Rs.14.475.19  was not properly working as there was water  leakage.  It was inspected by the service men of the second Opposite Party but they could not cure the defect as there was manufacturing defect.  The  Opposite Party No.1  in version  alleges  that T.P. Hardware centre did not sell any closet or materials to the Complainant.  In the same version Opposite party No.1 has admitted that the Complainant has purchased a ceramic closet comprises of  toilet seat and inbuilt water cistern manufactured by 2^nd  Opposite party for Rs.14,475.19  on 07.09.2018.  Ext.A1 reveals that the product under question has been sold to the Complainant by T.P. Associates.  Moreover  the Opposite Party No.1  has not denied that T.P. Associates is  their business concern.  Further,  the subsequent statements shown in the version and affidavit   reveal that the product manufactured by the second Opposite Party was sold to the Complainant by the 1^st  Opposite Party.  In the affidavit and version filed by the 1^st  Opposite party,  Opposite Party No.1 has   admitted that he  had handed over the warranty card to the Complainant.  1^st  Opposite Party also admits in version that there was a complaint and the same was redressed by the  2^nd  Opposite party.  From  these facts,  it is evident that  the first Opposite Party had sold the product manufactured by the 2^nd  Opposite Party to the Complainant and there existed a complaint in respect of the product.

          7.  The Complainant reiterates that inspite of servicing the product by the service men of the 2^nd  Opposite Party, the water leakage exists and hence the same product is kept idle.  Even after repairing  and servicing of the water closet and cistern,  if the water leakage exists, the Opposite Parties are liable either to repair the product without further leakage or to replace the product with a new one.  For this  no  expert opinion is required.  Here,  the Opposite Parties have not cured the defect to the satisfaction of the Complainant.  Here the Opposite Parties have violated the principles of natural justice.  So,  there has been deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Parties.  Therefore,  the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs. 

          In the  result,  the complaint is allowed and

1. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to replace the water closet comprising the cistern with a new one as the service men of the  2^nd Opposite Party could

not rectify the defect of the product.

2.  The Opposite Party No.2  is directed to pay Rs.8,000/-  (Rupees Eight thousand only) as compensation and  Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) for mental agony to the Complainant.
3.  The   1^st  and 2^nd  Opposite Parties are directed  to contribute equally to the total cost of the complaint of Rs.6,000/-  (Rupees Six thousand only) and to pay the same to the Complainant.

The above orders are to be obeyed by  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties within one month from the date of this order failing  which the amount will carry interest @  8%  from the date of this order  and the Complainant  shall be at liberty to proceed with other legal remedy.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Commission on this the 13^th day of October 2021.

Date of filing:08.05.2019.

                                                          PRESIDENT   :    Sd/-

                                                           MEMBER       :    Sd/-

                                                              MEMBER       :    Sd/-

-8 -

APPENDIX.

Witnesses for the complainant:

PW1.           Joy.                       Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.        Aneesh. M            Manager.                       

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.             Invoice.                dt:07.09.2018                

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.