Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/18/55

Shomy Jose - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tara Sanitory wares - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

     SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN        : PRESIDENT

                                 SMT.PREETHA G NAIR    : MEMBER

     SRI.VIJU.V.R                   : MEMBER

CC.NO.55/2018 (Filed on: 12/02/2018)

ORDER DATED: 20/02/2024

COMPLAINANT

Shomy Jose,

S/o.P.V.Joseph,

Paarankimaalil veedu,

House No.621-D, Prasanth Nagar,

Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram - 695011

(Party in person)

                                                          VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. Authorized Signatory,

Tara Sanitary Wares & Tiles

Goodwill Tower, Pattom – 695004

 

2. Authorized Signatory,

JAQUAR & Co Pvt Ltd,

Regd.Office C-20,

•  

G T Karnal Road,

Delhi – 110033

(OPs by Adv.C.R.Sudheesh)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.

3.  The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant had purchased two water closets from the first opposite party on 18/01/2018. The said products were manufactured by the second opposite party. At the time of purchase the first opposite party canvassed the product is a new one and the same is having five years warranty and ensured durability also. Accordingly the complainant purchased the products along with some other products by paying Rs.7259/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred and fifty nine only) to the first opposite party. According to the complainant after the purchase both closets fitted in the bathroom of the complainant’s residence and found that the flush system was not functioning. This fact was informed to the first opposite party and the first opposite party promised that they will register a complaint and the same will be conveyed to the second opposite party manufacturer and a technician of second opposite party will visit the complainant’s house for verifying the defect. As complainant is employed at Palakkad and he is not in a position to stay at Thiruvananthapuram continuously, the complainant requested the first opposite party to expedite the matter. Complainant was waiting in his residence expecting the inspection by the technician and even after three days nobody turned up and hence he was forced to leave his residence to join duty at Palakkad. Subsequent to that a technician from the second opposite party inspected the product but till this date nothing has taken place from the side of the opposite parties to rectify the defects. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances.

4. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased two water closets maintained by the second opposite party from the shop of the first opposite party. According to the opposite parties on getting complaint from the complainant regarding the alleged malfunctioning of the water closets, the first opposite party intimated the same to the second opposite party and the second opposite party sent a qualified technician to the premises of the complainant and on visit inspection of the water closets, it was noticed that the alleged malfunctioning was due to the improper fitting of the same by employee of poor craftsmanship engaged by the complainant. At the time of inspection by the technicians of the second opposite party, it is noticed that the wall where the closets are fitted are having some level difference and there was no defects in the water closets. Hence according to the opposite parties there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.A1, A1 (a) and A2 from the side of the complainant. Though the opposite party filed affidavit, no documents were produced or marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

 

6.  Points for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on

the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order  as to cost

7.       Heard both sides. Perused affidavit, records and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.A1, A1 (a) series and A2 series were marked from the side of  the complainant. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by the first opposite party to the complainant at the time of purchase of the product. Ext.A1 (a) is the invoice obtained by the complainant through e-mail. Ext.A2 is the reference number of the complaint registered through Customer Care Toll Free Number. The opposite parties though denied the allegations of defect in products, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased two water closets manufactured by the second opposite party from the shop of the first opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that after fitting the closets, the flush system of both closets were not functioning and hence the complainant approached the opposite party with a complaint. The opposite party’s contentions is that after receipt of the complaint the second opposite party sent a technician to the complainant’s premises for inspecting the product and found that there is no defect for the closets and the problem was not with regard to the defect of the product, but the same was due to the difference in the level of the wall where the closets is fitted with. The opposite parties admitted that the product is not functioning at the time of the inspection by the technician. But their contention is that non functioning was due to the difference in the level on the wall where the closets is fitted with. As such it is an admitted fact that the flush system of the closets is not functioning. So the complainant has prima facie established that the products purchased by him are not properly functioning. Now whether the contention raised by the opposite party regarding the reason for the non functioning of the product to the effect that the same is due to the difference in wall level is to be accepted or not. It is pertinent to note that other than the version and the averments in the affidavit, there is nothing before this commission to show that the defect was due to the level difference of the wall where the closets fitted. In the above circumstances, we find that as the complainant has prima facie established his case, the burden to prove that the defect was due to the level difference of the wall lies with the opposite party. The opposite parties has not adduced any evidence to support their contentions. Mere filing a written version and swearing an affidavit is not sufficient to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. The opposite parties ought to have filed the affidavit of the technician who inspected the products or the opposite party’s could have taken steps to prove their contentions or adduce any evidence in support of their contentions. From the available evidence before this commission, we find that the opposite parties failed to establish their contentions. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts.A1, A1(a) & A2, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. In the absence of any evidence to establish that the defect of the product was due to the level difference of the wall, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the opposite party. In the above circumstances, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties by which the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony. As the financial loss and mental agony were caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.7259/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred and fifty nine only) to the complainant along with Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance or realization .   

                     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

      

    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 20^th day of February 2024.

                                                                           Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                        Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be/

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.55/2018

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      -Shomy Jose

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.A1                  -   Copy of tax invoice issued by the first opposite party

Ext.A1 (a)              -   Copy of invoice obtained by the complainant through

                                 e- mail.

Ext.A2                  -   Copy of reference number of the complaint registered      

                                through Customer Care Toll Free Number.

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties – NIL

Court Exhibits                                      - NIL

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                      PRESIDENT