Date of filing:10-11-2013
Date of Disposal: 30-08-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Saturday, the 30th day of August, 2014
C.C.NO.144/2013
Between:
P.Jayachandra Naidu
S/o P.Narayana Swamy
Nadimipalli Village,
Narpala Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Manager,
Texmo Industires, P.B.No.5303
G.N.Mills Post,
Mettupalyam Road
- The Authorized Dealer,
Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agencies,
D.No.7-297-B, Court Road,
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.Hanumappa Advocate for the complainant and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards total crop loss, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards transport and other expenses in total Rs.10,00,000/- and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a resident of Nadimipalli Village, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. On 09-06-2011 the complainant purchased one Taro Submersible Motor from the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party has given warranty card for two years. The complainant fitted the said motor to his bore-well and raised 4000 banana plants in Sy.No.481/A extent Ac.1.20 cents and S.No.535/13 extent Ac.2.00 and the complainant will get 90 to 100 tonnes and value of one tone is more than Rs.10,000/- to Rs.14,000/- and the complainant will get more than Rs.9,000,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- and the motor has given problem from that day. Then the complainant has informed the same to the 2nd opposite party but he has not responded. Later on the advice of the 2nd opposite party the complainant has taken the motor to TEXMo Industries, Authorized Service Station i.e. Sri Vinayaka Agencies, Kadapa on 03-12-2012. The Service Centre Authorities repaired the motor and returned the same to the complainant after 30 days. The crop was already damaged and after receiving the motor, the complainant fitted the motor to the bore-well but it is not properly functioning. Due to non-working of the motor and delay in repairing the motor the complainant’s Banana garden was damaged and he lost more than Rs.10,00,000/-. The loss occurred due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties and the same was served on them but they did not respond positively. Due to non-functioning of the motor, the complainant sustained loss of crop and suffered mental agony. Hence the complainant prayed this Forum to grant reliefs as stated above.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter denying that on 09-06-2011 the complainant had purchased one Taro Submersible motor from 2nd opposite party and he has given warranty card for two years. But the complainant had not filed the warranty card as supplied by the 2nd opposite party at the time of his purchase. The complainant intentionally not filed the remaining portion of the warranty card. This opposite party denied that the complainant has fitted the motor in his bore-well and raised more than Rs.4,000/- Banana plants in Sy.No.481/A Ac.1.20 cents and Sy.No.535/13 Ac.2.00 and the complainant will get 90 to 100 ton and value of one ton is more than Rs.10,000/- to Rs.14,000/- and the complainant will get more than Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- and the motor has given problem from that day. This opposite party also denied that the complainant has given information to the 2nd opposite party but the 2nd opposite party was not responded. This opposite parties denied all the allegations made in the complaint. This opposite party submitted that the complainant has purchased Taro Submersible Motor from the 2nd opposite party and at the time of purchase, the 2nd opposite party has issued warranty card to the complainant. The warranty terms and conditions are that claim for any manufacturing defect will be limited to the purchase price of the pump set only. The company will have no responsibility whatsoever for any indirect or consequential damage or loss. If there is any manufacturing defect, the liability is limited only to the extent of cost of Pump Set only. The complainant has also not mentioned in the complaint that there is manufacturing defect to the pump set. The complainant has not produced any document to show that he has raised banana crop in his garden and the actual loss caused to him in the complaint. The complainant has raised commercial crop and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The last condition in the warranty card that any disputes out of this warranty shall be referred to the courts having jurisdiction in Coimbatore and no claim shall be made against the company outside Coimbatore not withstanding that the pump set may have been sold delivered elsewhere in India. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. As per the contents of the complaint, the complainant got the pump set repaired at Kadapa, but he has not included as party to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
Parties 1 & 2?
2. To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2, the 1st opposite party has filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 & B2 documents on their behalf.
7. The counsel for the complainant has not advanced any arguments and counsel for the opposite parties reported taken as heard.
8. POINT NO.1:- It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased Taro 15 HP Submersible Motor from the 2nd opposite party on 09-06-2011 for a sum of Rs.43,500 under Ex.A1. The complainant stated that the warranty for the above said motor pump is 2 years, whereas the opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that the complainant has not filed the full warranty card supplied to him. When we go through the warranty card filed by the complainant and opposite parties under Ex.A3 and B1, it is one and the same. The terms and conditions of the above said warranty card was not filed by the complainant. Generally the dealers will issue only the warranty card and they used to keep the terms and conditions leaf with them when a dispute arose then they will show that there are terms and conditions. But this is not the case to discuss all these things.
9. The complainant stated in the affidavit that after purchase of motor he fitted it in his bore-well and motor was started giving problem from that day and he has taken motor for repair at Sri Vinayaka Agencies, Kadapa, who is authorized service center of 1st opposite party. As per Ex.A2 dt.03-12-2012 the complainant has taken motor pump for repair and the above said service center were delivered the pump set after repairing it. The complainant stated in the affidavit that even after repair also the motor is giving some trouble and due to it he sustained loss of Rs.9,00,000/- as he raised banana crop in his fields.
10. Whereas the opposite parties contended that the complainant has not filed any document to show that he raised Banana crop in his fields and he sustained crop loss due to non-functioning of motor. The opposite parties stressing on point that how the complaint is maintainable when the complainant failed to claim that due to manufacturing defect of motor pump set, he sustained loss. When this averment is not in the complaint, the other reliefs claimed by the complainant is not entitled. The opposite parties contended that their Service Center is not made as party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be considered because the claim is not for free services rendered by service center, but the claim for loss due to motor.
11. When we go through the contents of the complaint and affidavit of the complainant, it shows that the motor purchased found defective and was taken the defective motor to the authorized dealer as per Ex.A2 and A3. The service center has taken almost one month time to repair it or rectify the defect. The complainant also issued legal notice dt.17-01-2013 under Ex.A4 to the opposite parties and the same was served on the opposite parties, but there is no reply. It is very pertinent to observe that the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not take any steps to enquire into the problem, which is to their knowledge except filing counter before this Forum. In the counter also the opposite parties did not contend that there is no manufacturing defect or that the service center of 1st opposite party, when the complainant approached for service is not their authorized service center. Hence it cannot be ruled out that the opposite parties are not having any knowledge of the defect with the motor. Inspite of having knowledge about the defect in motor through many probable sources the opposite parties attitude cannot excused.
12. The opposite parties 1 & 2 came forward in their counter in para 5 spotlighting on their condition limited to the purchase price of pump set only in case of manufacturing defect clearly shows that they have got knowledge and information with regard to defect of the particular motor purchased by the complainant. It is not the opposite parties contention that the motor is not with manufacturing defects and the defect was due to some other reasons specified in the conditions of warranty. So we came to conclusion that the motor which was under the service of authorized service center of opposite parties is roughly checked by the opposite parties and confirmed by them that it is due to manufacturing defect and became silent after receiving legal notice under Ex.A4. The opposite parties also did not agitate denying the allegations about the motor but continued to the loss of banana crop.
13. The complainant also could not establish the reason for loss of banana crop is due to non-functioning of motor and other relevant documents to quantify the loss. Under these circumstances the contention of the complainant cannot be considered fully but it is limited to the extent of defective motor only. Ex.A1 is cash bill showing the price of motor pump dt.09-06-2011 issued by the 2nd opposite party and same is not disputed and the same is within warranty period as per Ex.A3 and B1 and the opposite parties limit their liability to the extent of price of pump set is considered.
14. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.43,500/- towards the cost of Taro 15 HP Submersible Motor Pump Set to the complainant within one month from the date of this order; other-wise interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable by the opposite parties 1 & 2. In the circumstances other reliefs and costs are not granted.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 30th day of August, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Original Cash Bill dt.09-06-2011 for Rs.43,500/- issued by the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
Ex.A2 - Original Delivery Note dt.31-12-2012 issued by the authorized service center.
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of receipt dt.03-12-2012 issued by authorized service center.
Ex.A4 - Office copy of legal notice dt.17-01-2013 got issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A5- Postal Receipts
Ex.A6 - Receipt dt.03-12-2012 issued by Sri Maruti Prasanna Transport, Narpala.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 - Warranty Card issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.B2 – Terms and conditions issued by the opposite parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
