DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th day of July 2011

Present : Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 29/10/2010

(C.C.No.131/2010)

Yakoob,

S/o.M.C.Devassi,

Residing at

Madappalli House,

P.O.Vaniyamkulam,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad District

Prop.M/s.Southern National

Industries,

Vaniyamkulam, Ottapalam - Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

V/s

1. The Manager / Proprietor

Sterling Abrasive Ltd.,

Plot No.45/46,

GDC Gujarath Industrial

Development Corporation,

Industrial Estate, Odhav Road,

Ahamedabad – 382 415

State of Gujarath

2. Manager / Proprietor

M/s.Savitha Agencies

Shoranur, Palakkad – 679 122 - Opposite parties

(By Adv.Kusalan.P.P)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER.

Complainant is the proprietor of the M/s. Southern National Industries. He has started workshop for his livelihood. He is the principal worker in the firm and the workshop is registered as a small scale industries which bears No.1109 with effect from 5/4/1997. Iron agricultural implements such as shovels, hammers, sickles etc. are manufacturing in this unit. To help him in the process of manufacture he has employed 2 persons. On 27/8/09 at 9 'O' clock in the morning while the complainant alongwith one of his employees named Babu was working with the aid of an electric grinder suddenly broken and exploded into pieces. Due to the sudden explosion it has hit on the face and head of Babu and he had sustained serious injuries. He died from the Medical College Hospital Trichur. The cause of death of the complainant's employee Babu is due to the sudden explosion and crash of the grinding wheel. The complainant had purchased two grinding wheels from 2^nd opposite party on 21/8/2009 by paying Rs.3890/- Out of the two grinding wheels purchased one of the grinding wheels had exploded. The cause of explosion is of the very poor and sub standard quality of the grinding wheel manufactured by 1^st opposite party. The complainant was using the grinding wheel with properly fastened and fixed as per the directions issued by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant had to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the Legal heirs of late Babu by way of compensation. This incident has affected the reputation of the complainant to a larger extent and has also caused mental agony. The complainant had conveyed his grievance and demand of 2 lakhs rupees to 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer. As the 2^nd opposite party is not directly responsible for the manufacturing defect and its inferior quality,the complainant is not seeking any relief from them. Relief is sought from 1^st opposite party, who is directly responsible for the incident by way of manufacturing and selling their inferior and poor quality product. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the 1^st opposite party to

1. Pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss and mental agony

2. Pay cost of the proceedings.

    

1^st Opposite party set exparte. 2^nd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The 2^nd opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased the grinding wheels on 21/8/09. The 2^nd opposite party denies that one among the grinding wheel purchased has exploded. The complainant has to prove that he used the grinding wheel with properly fastened and fixed as per the direction issued by the 1^st opposite party. To the knowledge of the 2^nd opposite party the goods sold to the complainant are of good quality. The complainant has not informed the alleged incident and has not send any notice to 2^nd opposite party. The complainant has not demanded 2 lakhs rupees or any amount from the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is a dealer of grinding wheel supplied by 1^st opposite party. Hence the 2^nd opposite party prays that dismissed the compliant with cost.

2^nd Opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.A1 & Ext.A2 marked on the side of the complainant.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.I & II

We perused relevant documents on record. In Ext.A1 the complainant has purchased two grinding wheel from the 2^nd opposite party. In Ext.A2 the statement of the relative of the deceased stated that Babu worked in the Southern National Industries and he died due to the sudden explosion of the grinding wheel. In Ext.A2 Jacob is the owner of the company. The complaint was filed by Yakoob and stated that he is the proprietor of M/s.Southern National Industries. No objection was raised by the 2^nd opposite party to marking of Ext.A2. Also in Ext.A1 the name of the owner of the Industries was not mentioned. The complainant filed I.A.98/11 to send the remaining parts of the grinding wheel to the appropriate Industrial Quality testing Laboratory for report. I.A. Allowed. But the complainant has not taken steps. The complainant stated that the cause of explosion is of the very poor and substandard quality of the grinding wheel manufactured by 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party has not filed version or affidavit. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that the grinding wheel was very poor and substandard quality.

In Ext.A2 the accident was happened and one Babu was died. No contradictory evidence was produced by 2^nd opposite party. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that he has to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the legal heirs of late Babu, by way of compensation. The complainant stated that workshop registered as a small scale industries and started for his livelihood. The 2^nd opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased two grinding wheels and 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer. The complainant has not seeking any relief from 2^nd opposite party. 1^st opposite party was set exparte.

In the above discussions, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. In the result the complaint is allowed.

We direct the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th day of July 2011.

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Invoice No.1140 dt.21/8/09 for purchase of grinding

wheel for Rs.3890/-

Ext.A2 –Photocopy of FIR No.599 dt.27/8/09

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings