Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant is the proprietor of the shop “New Kerala Tyres”, Adoor.  According to the complainant, the income derived from the said shop is the only means of livelihood of the complainant and his family.  On 25.10.2012 the complainant approached the opposite party for the purchase of an Air Compressor.  The Air Compressor ELGI make Model is TS 10 120 HN driven by 10HP 3 Phase motor worth Rs.1,45,277/-.  The complainant purchased the air compressor and paid the above said consideration.  It is contended that the said compressor was perfectly for the first two months thereafter the gadget gradually began to develop some snag causing trouble to the complainant.  Even though, several check-ups were done by the opposite party but the compressor is still not in a working condition.  According to the complainant, the opposite party issued a warranty card for the same and the defect occurred at the time of warranty.  On 23.07.2013, the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party with regard to the above said defect of the article and the opposite party has given a reply on 03.08.2013 on the said legal notice.  It is contended that the compressor is characterised with some manufacturing defect and the same is evident from the customer call itself which issued to the complainant.  He again contended that the opposite party being the dealer of the articles is bound to replace the article or to return the purchase amount.  The failure of the compressor badly affected the business in the shop from 26.12.2012 onwards.  All the above acts of the opposite parties are clearly comes under the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum to replace the compressor with the same description and for compensation, cost etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the above said complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  The opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed their version separately as follows:  According to the 1^st opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact and also contended that this complaint is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The 1^st opposite party contended that it is a private Ltd. Company having 3 directors and the all directors should be in the party array.  According to him, the manufacturer of the compressor is a necessary party since the complainant alleged manufacturing defect for this article.  He further stated that the entire cause of action arised outside the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.  It is further contended that the said compressor was purchased by the complainant only for commercial purposes.  According to the 1^st opposite party, the complainant is conducting a business of Tyre Retreading service with the help of the employees and making profit.  Hence the complainant is not comes under the purview of C.P. Act.  It is further stated that the complainant is producing a new product different from that which he was getting from his customers previously and earning substantial profit out of this business.  It is further contended that the Air Compressor was being used by the complainant in perfect working condition within the warranty period and thereafter also for his Tyre Retreading business.  It is stated that the warranty period is only for 6 months and the opposite parties are attended the defect if any without any complaint. According to him, the air compressor is not used as per the specifications and as per the directions and the said compressor is being used only for a limited time.  According to them, there is no manufacturing defect to the air compressor shown by the opposite party to the complainant.  It is further contended that moisture or water is not manufactured by the compressor supplied by the opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. 

                   4. The 2^nd opposite party also filed their version as follows:  According to the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party is also contended the more or less as per the contention of 1^st opposite party’s version.  2^nd opposite party also questioned the maintainability, jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary party through his version.  According to him, he also admitted the purchase of the compressor from the 1^st opposite party but contended that it is purchased for making more profit and the same is used for commercial purpose alone.  When we briefly perusing the version of 2^nd opposite party, it can be seen that there is no manufacturing defect for the said Air Compressor and the complainant is used the compressor not as per the specification of the manual and as per the direction of the manufacturer.  The business of the complainant was not affected as badly as alleged by him on account of any defect of the Air Compressor hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore, this 2^nd opposite party also prayed to dismiss this case with cost. 

         5. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint, versions and records before us, we framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per C.P. Act?
3. Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
4. Regarding relief and costs?

         6. The evidence of complainant consists of the evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A18.  Ext.A1 is the quotation dated 25.10.2012.  Ext.A2 is the Tax Invoice dated 30.10.2012.  Ext.A3 is the cash receipt dated 25.10.2012 for Rs.10,000/-.  Ext.A4 is the cash receipt dated 30.10.2012 for Rs.1,35,277/-.  Ext.A5 is the customer service call report dated 10.04.2013.  Ext.A6 is the customer service call report dated 05.06.2013.  Ext.A7 is the customer service call report dated 18.06.2013.  Ext.A8 is the customer service call report dated 06.07.2013.  Ext.A9 is the postal receipt of Ext.A10.  Ext.A10 is the legal notice dated 23.07.2013 sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A11 is the warranty card.  Ext.A12 is the licence dated 25.08.2011 (subject to proof).  Ext.A13 is the certificate dated 10.12.1984.  Ext.A14 is the settlement deed.  Ext.A15 is the license dated 25.08.2011.  Ext.A16 is the license dated 02.08.2013.  Ext.A17 is the receipt dated 16.02.2015 for Rs.500/-.  Ext.A18 is the receipt dated 15.02.2016 for Rs.500/-.  On the other side, opposite parties examined as DW1 and DW2 and marked Exts.B1 to B6 and also marked a commission report as Ext.C1 and C1(a) (subject to proof).  At the time of cross-examination, through PW1 B1 to B4 also marked.  The Ext.B4 is also marked as subject to proof.    The commissioner is also examined as PW2 and through him Ext.C1 and C1(a) is marked which was marked as Ext.C1 and C1(a) (subject to proof).  DW2 is also examined and through him Ext.B7 and B8 series are marked.  Ext.B1 is the copy of quotation dated 25.10.2012.  Ext.B2 is the copy of Tax Invoice.  Ext.B3 is the copy of reply of advocate notice dated 03.08.2013 (subject to proof).   Ext.B4 (additional) is the Manual.  Ext.B4 is the copy of Standard Warranty Card (subject to proof).  Ext.B5 is the authorization dated 23.09.2015.  Ext.B6 is the Standard Warranty Card.  Ext.B7 is the authorization dated 17.11.2015.  Ext.B8 series are the copy of RAC Unit Model’s Part list (5 Pages).  Ext.C1 and C1(a) are the Mahazar and Report dated 19.02.2015 of PW2 the Commissioner. 

          7. When we peruse the proof affidavit of PW1, it reveals that the contents of his affidavit is more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  He deposed that he is conducting this business for his livelihood and having a small scale industrial registration for this business.  He again deposed that the defect of the Air Compressor began at the time of warranty period and the same is informed to 1^st opposite party though the engineers of the 1^st opposite party repaired the said compressor the defect of accumulation of oil and water in the gadget area of the compressor was still existed. In order to substantiate the complainant’s case he produced and marked exhibits in his favour.  On the other side, the opposite parties 1 and 2 examined DW1 and DW2 on their side.  As stated earlier, DW1 and DW2 are also deposed in terms of their version before the Forum.  It is deposed that this complainant is a consumer under the purview of the C.P. Act and he is using this article for making profit.  The business of the complainant can be considered as a commercial business.  In order to substantiate the defence contention DW1 and DW2 also produced and marked exhibits in their favour.  The learned counsels concerned for the complainant and opposite parties cross-examined all the witnesses examined for this case.  After the closure of evidence, the case is posted for hearing for both side and at that time both sides filed argument note. 

          8. Point Nos.1 & 2:- Considering the nature and circumstances of this case we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.  The 1^st Point to be considered is whether the case is maintainable before the Forum and the 2^nd Point is to be considered is whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in C.P. Act 1986.  When we decide this issue we would peruse the version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2.  The complainant in his complaint and in his proof affidavit specifically stated that he is a consumer and he is conducting this business for his livelihood.  But on the other side, opposite party 1 and 2 has a definite case to the effect that the complainant is not at all a consumer as per Sec.2(b) of C.P. Act 1986.  In order to substantiate the complainant’s case he produced and marked the SSA Registration Certificate issued from Industrial Department, Govt. of Kerala.  Though the opposite parties learned counsel cross-examined PW1 in this aspect nothing brought out to disbelieve PW1 with regard to his pleading related to his case of running his business for his livelihood and having an SSA Registration.  In order to substantiate the opposite parties contention in this issue opposite parties learned counsel submitted a decision reported in SCC 583 – 1995(3) Laxmi Engineerinig Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute by our Hon’ble Supreme Court.  In this decision, it is held that if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e. by self employment, earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a commercial purposes  .............. But with a view use goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit, he will not be a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(d) of C.P. Act, 1986.  In support of the above said decision the learned counsel cited another decision reported in SCC 709 2015(12) of our Hon’ble Supreme Court.  When we consider the evidence of this case it is revealed that the complainant is using this compressor only for Retreading 2^nd hand vehicle tyre.  He is actually doing a maintenance work upon the defective tyres.  There is any kind of large scale production or any new product come out from his enterprise.  Hence we can safely conclude that this decisions are not applicable as far as this case is concerned.  The opposite parties raised another contention to the effect that the complainant is doing this business with the help of 3 paid employees.  In order to substantiate this view the learned counsel for the opposite party cited another decision reported SCC 131 1997(1) in Cheema Engineering Services Vs. Rajan Singh.  In this decision, it is held that the complainant has to prove that he and his family members were using the machine for producing the article for earning his livelihood.  In support of this decision, another decision reported in CPJ(1)239 1996 in Bhati Poultry Farm Vs. Kewalramani Hatcheries is also cited.  Another decision reported in CPJ(1)119 1995(2) in Abhinav Publishing India (P) Ltd. Vs. Graphics and Prints.  When we rely on this decision, it is clear that all these decisions are mentioning large scale production of goods and large scale making of profit of the producer concerned.  When we consider the evidence of this case, it is clear that the complainant is conducting a small scale enterprises only for Retreading old tyres.  It is admitted that he is doing this business with the help of 3 paid employees.  When we look into the retreading process of tyres nobody can think that this business can be done by a single person in order to retread the old tyres lorry and buses.  No doubt, assistants of 2 or more persons are highly required for the running of this kind of business.  It is true that the opposite parties are succeeded to prove that the complainant (PW1) is continuing this business with the help of 3 paid employees.  But at the same time, though the presence of the 3 employees are proved the PW1’s strong stand of “conducting business for livelihood” has not been defeated.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant also cited certain decision to substantiate their case.  He cited a decision reported in CPJ 245 (NC)2012(4) in Construction Equipment Ltd., and another Vs. Bablu Mridha.  It is held that the law on the point is well settled that when a buyer takes the assistants of one or two persons to assist held him in operating the machine he does not cease to be a consumer.  As far as this case is concerned, the complainant is using 3 paid employees to assist his business purposes and it does not cease the complainant from the purview of the definition clause of ‘consumer’ and it is also to be noted that the opposite parties have not proved that the complainant engaged in any commercial activities as alleged by them.  He also relied another decision reported in CPJ 265 (NC) 2006(3) in Super Computer Centre Vs. Globiz Investment Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant cited this decision to prove that the complainant is a consumer in respect of the defective machine because he intimated the defect of the machine within the warranty period.  As per the decision reported in CPJ 245 (NC)2012(IV) the Hon’ble National Commission clarified that the expression for the purpose of earning his “livelihood” – respondent is having only 2 machines and the same are being used by respondent for earning his livelihood - Respondent is not engaged in any commercial activities – No jurisdictional or legal error in orders of Fora below – no interference required costs Rs.10,000/- awarded (Para 13, 14, 15 and 17)”.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant also cited another decision reported in 2014(3) KHC 195 it is held that, “statutory definitions or abbreviations must be read subject to the qualification variously expressed in the definition clauses which created within a statute is  based interpreted when we know why it was enacted”.  There is no doubt to see that the C.P. Act 1986 is a welfare legislation especially for the welfare and protection of consumers, when we evaluating the evidence of a case we would rather consider the purpose and intention of the social legislation apart from technical reasons.  Here it is clear that the complainant is a person who is not passed SSLC, he and his family depending this business only for their livelihood and this establishment is a small scale establishment also.  The complainant also submitted a decision reported in CPJ 173 (NC)2012 (1I) in MCS Computer Services Vs. Allena Auto Industries and another decision reported in 2010(1) CPJ 49 in BPL Engineering Ltd. and others Vs. Hanumanth Narayanan Shendkr to prove his case to the effect that the enterprise is for his livelihood alone.  In the light of the evidence and as per the citations above discussed, we would like to find that the complainant in this case comes u/s. 2(d) of C.P. Act and the case is maintainable.  Hence Point No. 1 & 2 are found in favour of the complainant.

          9. Point Nos.3 & 4:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.3 and 4 together.  In this Point, we would like to consider whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant as PW1 deposed that after 2 months of the purchase of the above said Air Compressor, it shows some complaints to its function that the gadget portion of the compressor gradually began to develop some snag causing trouble to him, that when oil is filled in the head portion of the compressor it was soon found mixed with water and this defect was brought to the notice of 1^st opposite party.  Even though, the complainant PW1 informed the defect to the 1^st opposite party he conducted so many checkups upon the compressor, the 1^st opposite party failed to cure the defect and it is also deposed that the defect occurred during the warranty period of the said compressor.  It is evident to see that though the complainant adduced evidence in this aspect, the opposite party vehemently opposed the contention of the complainant through their version and cross-examination.  According to opposite party 1 and 2 neither the complainant (PW1) nor the commissioner (PW2) has stated specifically the defective part or parts of the air compressor sold by 1^st opposite party to the complainant and in Ext.C1 and C1(a) the defective part of the air compressor was not stated and at the time of cross-examination PW1 also admitted that he is ignorant about the technical details of the defect of the air compressor.  According to the opposite party 1 and 2, the defect of the compressor happened not within the warranty period.  When we peruse the evidence adduced by the complainant and when we examine the PW1’s deposition in cross-examination, it is clear that the complainant has a definite case with regard to the defect of his air compressor.  In order to prove it, we can easily rely the proof affidavit of the complainant.  In his proof affidavit Para 4 it is stated, “F¶m Sn Air Compressor hm§n 2 amkw Ign-ª-t¸mÄ apX compressorþsâ gadget tISp-h-cn-Ibpw compressorþse oilþ shÅw anIvkv sNbvXp InS-¡p-¶Xp ImcWw compressor {]hÀ¯n-¸n-¡m³ km[n-¡msX hcn-Ibpw sNbvX-Xn H¶mw FXr-I£n Øm]-\s¯ Adn-bn-¡p-Ibpw Sn Øm]-\-¯nse kÀÆokv F©n-\o-bÀamÀ h¶v \nc-h[n XhW oil amän {]hÀ¯n-¸n¨v t\m¡n-b-t¸mÄ ho­pw oilþ shÅw anIvkv sNbvXv ImW-s¸-Sp-Ibpw sNbvXn-«p-Å-Xm-Wv.  Sn dn¸-b-dp-IÄ 2013 P\p-h-cn, s^{_p-hcn amk-§-fn sNbvXn-«p-ÅXpw Sn dnt¸mÀ«p-IÄ FÃmw Xs¶ H¶mw FXr-I£n Øm]-\¯n\v kÀÆokv F©n-\o-bÀamÀ \ÂIn-bn-«p-Å-XpamWv”.  As per the above deposition of PW1, it is clear that he has reasonable knowledge with regard to the defect of the compressor and also we have to bear in mind that he is a layman not even passed SSLC and conducting a small scale retreading work for his livelihood.   We cannot expect more from such a layman with regard to the technicalities of the mechanical defect of the above said air compressor.  When we examine Ext.C1 and C1(a) commission report it reveals that the said air compressor is suffering a manufacturing defect and also he is examined as PW2 before the Forum.  In chief examination he deposed, “Rm³ inspect sNbvX kabw oil tiJ-cn-¡m¯ oil stump portiionþ oil-þsâ H¸w 30% to 40% shÅhpw ImW-s¸-«p.  C¯-c-¯n shÅ-¯nsâ km¶n²yw DÅ-Xn-\m lubrication proper Bbn \S-¡m-Xn-cn-¡p-I-bpw, Xpcp¼v ]nSn¡m-\pw,  compressorþ\v  damage D­m-hm-\pÅ  km²y-X-bp-ap-­v”.  The Forum asked a specific question to PW2, “shÅw oil stump-þ tiJ-cn-¡-s¸-Sp-¶Xv natural defect BtWm? A§-s\bpÅ {]h-À-¯\w Hgn-hm-¡-¯¡ \ne-bn-em-IWw machine \nÀ½n-t¡-­Xv (A). C¯-c-¯n ImWp-¶Xv manufacturing defect Xs¶-bm-Wv.  Cu manufacturing defect repairable BtWm?  Repairable AÃ.  Replace sNbvXm am{Xsa ]cn-lm-c-amIp. (A). Witness adds, machine replace sNt¿­n hcpw”.  At the time of cross-examination, the learned opposite parties counsel questioned the veracity of Ext.C1 and C1(a).  He answered in cross-examination, “Oil stump-sâ  full caseþ\v BWv Rm³ manufacturing defect I­-Xv.  Machine Rm³ Agn¨p t\m¡n-bn-cp-¶p. Bb-Xn\v th­ equipments Fsâ ]¡Â D­m-bn-cp-¶p.  Sn hnhcw Rm³ reportþ ]d-ªn«nÃ.  Rm³ Sn compressor work sNbvXv I­n-cp-¶p.  Rm³ Xs¶-bmWv machine operate sNbvXv I­-Xv.  BbXv Rm³ report-þ ]d-ªn-«p-ap-­v”.  The opposite parties counsel specifically asked another question and PW2 answered, - “machineþ shÅw ImWp-¶Xv natural phenomina AÃ, adn¨v \nÀ½mW sshI-ey-amWv” (Q&A).  He again answered in cross, sufficient work CsÃ-¦nepw moisture content D­m-hnÔ.  In cross another question asked, “Hcp aWn-¡q-dn 20 an\näv F¦nepw {]hÀ¯n-¨m am{Xsa 10HP Compressor \à coXn-bn {]hÀ¯n¡q?  (A) AÔ. 

         10. When we peruse the evidence adduced by PW2 the commissioner in this case, it is evident to see that the air compressor is suffering a mechanical defect and the defect cannot be cured by a maintenance work and replacement is the only alternative for this.  It is true that the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party questioned the competency of the commissioner and the veracity of the report.  It is to see that the commissioner is a graduate in B. Tech and a post graduate in oil and gas protection and he is working as a Guest Lecturer in an institution.  Considering all these aspects, there is no need to disbelieve the competency of the commissioner PW2 or degrading the Ext.C1 and C1(a) mahazar and report prepared and filed by him.  PW2 deposed that the compressor is still working but the defect noted are still existing.  According to him, there is no chance of curing the defect by way of repairing and the only alternative is replacement.  We are not in a position to agree with the whole statement of PW2.  When the compressor is functioning along with the defect noted we find that the said defect can be cured by an expert technician.  We think that an opportunity has to be given to the opposite parties to rectify the defect within a stipulated time.  The next question to be considered is whether the defect in question happened within the warranty period or not.  The opposite parties admitted that for this air compressor, there is a warranty of 9 months or 6 months allowed from the date of invoice or date of commission respectively was allowed.  It is to see that the defect of accumulation of water and oil in the gadget started after 2 months of its purchase.  As per Ext.A5, A6, A7 and A8 it is proved that the complainant intimated the defect of the air compressor to the opposite parties.  Moreover, the opposite party was attended the complaint of the complainant after 2 months of its purchase.  Then we can arrive a conclusion that the defect of the compressor occurred on December 2012 and the said defect was attended by the opposite parties concerned.  If it be so, the contention of the opposite parties to the effect that the defect of the air compressor happened not at the time of warranty period has not been sustained.  As we discussed earlier, for and on behalf of opposite party 1 and 2 the authorised representatives of opposite party 1 and 2 are examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively.  The DW1 produced the standard warranty card, which was marked as Ext.B6 in this case.  When we peruse Ext.B6, we can see that a period of 9 months from the date of invoice or 6 months from the date of commissioning whichever is earlier is the warranty period.  Except the statement referred here no other details with regard to the name, date, product model etc, etc, are not find in Ext.B6, when DW1 is examined in cross he answered, “Ext.B6- product number, model number, invoice number, date Ch tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«pt­m? Cà (A).  Cu warranty card Hcp incomplete document BsW¶v ]d-bp-¶p.  icn-bmWv (Q & A).  So we are not in a position to rely the evidence of this Ext.B6 when we decide the main issues.  It is true that another standard warranty card in photostat has been produced by the opposite party and it is marked as Ext.B4 (subject to proof).  The opposite parties failed to produce the original standard warranty card before this Forum to consider this exhibit for evidence.  Moreover, Ext.B4 (subject to proof) also contains no descriptions with regard to the details of warranty.  When DW2 is cross-examined, he answered “Ext.B4 document-Dw Addl.B4 document-Dw c­mWv.  Addl. B4 F¶Xv Cu caseþ DÄs¸« compressor-sâ owner’s manual AÃtÃm? BWv.  The same model BWv.  Addl. Ext.B4, 2000 January-bn Cd-¡n-b-XmWv.  Ext.B4 2012-se BWv”.  In the light of the testimony of DW2, it is clear that Ext.B4 and addl. B4 are different and it is to see that Ext.B4 is published in the year 2012 as owner’s manual.  The opposite party 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence to show that on which owner’s manual they are relying.  Moreover, it is to see that Ext.B4 is marked subject to proof.  Hence we have to discard the evidence of Ext.B4 and addl. B4 in this case.  In cross-examination DW2 for the answered, “Ext.A6 to A8 CtX complaint Xs¶-btà ]d-ªn-cn-¡p-¶Xv (A) AsX, and again he adds, air compressor- Ct¸mgpw Cu defect \ne-\n¡p¶p F¶pw ]d-bp¶p (A) icn-b-Ã. Working condition BWv”.  In the light of this answer we can infer that the opposite party attended the defect of the compressor on 05.06.2013, 18.06.2013 and 06.07.2013.  In Ext.A8, it is stated that the compressor is checked and found water mixed in the oil and changed the oil.  It is also inferred that on 10.04.2013 the complaint of oil and water mix found in the gadget which was reported to the opposite party as per Ext.A5.  This Ext.A5, A6, A7 and A8 are cogent and conclusive evidence to prove that the defect happened at the time of warranty.  As stated earlier, it is found that the invoice of the compressor in question was issued on 25.10.2012 and it can be safely inferred that even the opposite party admitted that there is a warranty of 9 months from the date of invoice onwards.  Hence we can safely answered that the defect of the compressor has started within the warranty period.  The learned counsel of the opposite party seriously opposed the locus-standi of the complainant to proceed with the case as the owner of the establishment.  It is admitted that the father of the complainant was the owner of this establishment and as per Ext.A14 settlement deed he transferred his right to this complainant and as per Ext.A12, A15, A16, A17 and A18 the licence of this establishment were issued in favour of the complainant and the said licence is for retreading tyres. It is also to be noted that as per Ext.A13, the Dept. of Industries and Commerce, Govt. of Kerala issues their licence in favour of the complainant’s father.  As per Ext.A11, the Standard Warranty Card produced and marked on behalf of PW1 as stated earlier.  It is clear that there is a warranty of 9 months from the date of invoice of 6 months from the date of commissioning whichever is earlier is allowable to the customers.  The genuineness of this document was not challenged from any side at the time of trial and more over there is a condition to the effect that, replacement or repair of defective component shall be at the discretion of LG only, based on proper validation of complaint, nature and extent of damage.  Though a discretion of LG Company is mentioned here that discretionary right cannot be used against natural justice and moreover in this case it is to be noted that a mechanical defect was already found as the reason for the defect of the compressor in question.  In the light of the above discussion, we find that the complainant is succeed to prove the deficiency in service of the opposite parties with regard to the compressor in question.  It is an admitted fact that the 1^st opposite party is the authorised dealer and proprietor of Premier Techno Traders Pvt. Ltd. and addl. 2^nd opposite party is the sales manager of L.G. Equipment Ltd.  Hence it is implied that opposite party 1 and 2 are equally and severally liable to the complainant with regard to the deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complaint is allowable and Point No.3 and 4 are also found in favour of the complainant.

          11. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1.  Opposite party 1 and Addl. Opposite party 2 are directed to cure the defect of the compressor within one month of the receipt of this order, if he fails to rectify the defect of the compressor the opposite parties are directed to replace the same model of the compressor or pay the purchase amount, i.e. Rs.1,35,270/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand two hundred and seventy only) with 9% interest from the date of purchase onwards. ((1) The opposite parties are also directed to inform their willingness to repair the compressor within 10 days of receipt of this order to the complainant.  (2) If the opposite parties replacing the compressor or paying the cost as stated above the complainant shall be returned the compressor in question to the opposite parties)

2. A compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) is allowed to the complainant from opposite parties with 9% interest from the date of order onwards.

3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of order onwards.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th         day of July, 2016.

                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                     P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Reji Chacko

PW2  :  Abraham Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1  :  Quotation dated 25.10.2012. 

A2  :  Tax Invoice dated 30.10.2012. 

A3  :  Cash receipt dated 25.10.2012 for Rs.10,000/-. 

A4  :  Cash receipt dated 30.10.2012 for Rs.1,35,277/-. 

A5  :  Customer service call report dated 10.04.2013. 

A6  :  Customer service call report dated 05.06.2013. 

A7   : Customer service call report dated 18.06.2013. 

A8   :  Customer service call report dated 06.07.2013. 

A9   :  Postal receipt of Ext.A10. 

A10 :  Legal notice dated 23.07.2013 sent by the complainant

          to 1^st opposite party. 

A11 :  Warranty card. 

A12 :  Licence dated 25.08.2011 (subject to proof). 

A13 :  Certificate dated 10.12.1984. 

A14 :  Settlement deed. 

A15 :  License dated 25.08.2011. 

A16 :  License dated 02.08.2013. 

A17 :  Receipt dated 16.02.2015 for Rs.500/-. 

A18 :  Receipt dated 15.02.2016 for Rs.500/-.   

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  S. Mohanan

DW2  :  Fasal. B.B

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Copy of quotation dated 25.10.2012. 

B2 : copy of Tax Invoice.

B3 :  Copy of reply of advocate notice dated 03.08.2013 (subject to proof).  

B4 (additional)  :  Manual. 

B4 :  Copy of Standard Warranty Card (subject to proof). 

B5 :  Authorization dated 23.09.2015. 

B6 :  Standard Warranty Card. 

B7 :  Authorization dated 17.11.2015. 

B8 series :  Copy of RAC Unit Model’s Part list (5 Pages).

Court Witness  :  Nil.

Court Exhibits:

C1 & C1(a) :  Mahazar and Report dated 19.02.2015.

                                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Reji Chacko, Alan Villa, Erathu Village, Adoor Taluk.

2. The Authorised Dealer & Proprietor,

          Premier Techno Traders Pvt. Ltd., Near Municipal Town Hall,

          Cochin – 33.

3. Managing Director, ELG Equipments Ltd., Trichy Road,    

Singamallur, Coimbatore.

4. The Stock File.