D.O.F:19/09/2022
D.O.O:27/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.224/2022
Dated this, the 27th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Dhanalakshmi, aged 45 years,
W/o. Kiran Kumar,
New Bhagya Enterprises,
M.P.-VIII/230, “Hariprema”, : Complainant
Near Family Court,
Post Vidyanagar,
Kasaragod- 671123
(Adv. A. Balakrishnan Nair)
And
The Manager,
AKZONOBLE INDIA LIMITED,
Velasseril Building,
Building No.14/A, : Opposite Party
Malayidamthuruthu Post,
Pukkattupady,
Kizhakkambalam, Kochi- 683561
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is running a shop dealing with auto Mobile painting at Vidyanagar Kasaragod. The complainant used to mix different colors by putting the tinner of various colors to suit actual colors of each vehicle, for which an automatic scanner machine is required for the correct proportion of paint. The representatives of Opposite Party approached the complainant and convinced that they are supplying Germen made automatic machine. Believing the words of the representatives the complainant purchased an automatic scanner machine with name and number 6315800BYK Gardener Automatic vision 7060COMP from Opposite Party for Rs.1,45,000/- dated 22/11/2019 including GST. At the time of purchase Opposite Party offered 3 years warranty for the product and alsooffered free service for a period of 6 years. The Complainant is not in a position to use the mixer unit for the last many months as it is defective.Without this scanner machine the complainant is unable to continue her profession. The allegation of the Complainant is that the product supplied by the opposite party had manufacturing defects. So she could not use the mixer unit for the last many months. The complainant requested Opposite party to repair mixer unit but the Opposite Party did not heed the complaint. So the complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 01/08/2022. The complainant sustained heavy loss and hard ship due to the unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties. She estimated her loss as Rs.10,00,000/- with replace of the defective machine with a new one with interest and cost.
Notice to Opposite party served, but they remained absent, name of Opposite party called, absent, set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu chief examination and the documents Ext.A1 to A4 produced are marked.
The questions raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service- unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite [parties.
2. Whether the complainant entitled for relief? If So what is the relief?
For convenience issues No.1 and 2 can be discussed together.
The case of the complainant is that she is running a shop dealing with auto mobile painting at Vidyanagar, for which she used to mix different colors by putting the tinner of various colors to suit the actual colors of each vehicle. An automatic scanner machine is required to get the correct proportion of the paint. The representatives of Opposite party convinced the Complainant that they are supplying German made automatic machine. Believing the words of the representatives of opposite partythe complainant purchased an automatic scanner machine by paying Rs.1,45,000/- on 22/11/2019. At the time of purchase the opposite party promised 3 years warranty and free service for 6 years for the product. After using the product the complainant understood that it had manufacturing defect and informed Opposed party to cure the defect. But opposite party was not ready to comply the offers given to the complainant at the time of sale. The complainant produced Ext.A1 and A2- tax invoices, Ext.A3 legal notice, Ext.A4 postal acknowledgement etc. before the commission. Without having the mixing unit the complainant is unable to conduct her business. Failure to cure the defects of the machine during warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party. The negligent attitude of Opposite Party caused heavy loss and mental agony to the complainant. The prayer of the complainant is either to replace the defective machine with a new one, or refund the price of the mixing unit.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case the commission holds that refund of the price of the mixing unit is a reasonable remedy in this case. The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- but she did not produce any documentary evidence to prove such a huge loss. This commission is of the view that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
Hence, the opposite party bound to refund the price of the mixing unit with 9% interest from 01/08/2022 till payment along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost.
In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party to refund Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand only) with 9% interest from 01/08/2022 till payment along with Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Tax invoice
A2: Tax invoice
A3: Legal notice
A4: Postal acknowledgement
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
