DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 14^th  day of November, 2023.

Present : Sri Vinay Menon V, President

: Smt. Vidya.A., Member

     : Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member.

                        Date of filing: 09/02/2023.                                                 

CC/41/2023

  Prakash Padmanabhan - Complainant

  Gayathri Temple Lane,

  Kadamkode, Karingarapully P.O,

  Palakkad - 678 551.

  (Party-in-Person) Vs

• The Managing Director - Opposite parties

    Jagur India Ltd.,

    Plot/3 Near Maruthi Gate 4

IMT Manesar Sector II

Manesar, Gurugram,

Haryana.

• M/s K.A.V Shaik Rowther

    31/671 Market Road,

Palakkad 678 104.

(Both opposite parties ex-parte)

ORDER

By Smt.Vidya A., Member

• Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

The complainant purchased ‘Jaguar’ branded pipe fittings from the opposite party in the year  2017. The manufacturer warranty for the product is 10 years. But the products purchased by the complainant do not satisfy the quality and had several issues. Even though the Service Engineers of the opposite party attended the issues, the problems persisted. The opposite parties  state that the problem is due to poor water quality and now the warranty is over. According to the complainant, the issues are due to the manufacturing defect and poor quality of the items. So he filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to replace the defective pipe fittings and to pay Rs 25,000/- as  damages for their Deficiency in Service.

2      After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. But they did not appear or file version and were set ex-parte.

3. Complainant filed Proof Affidavit and Exts. A1 and A2 (series) marked. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice issued by the 2^nd opposite party. Ext A2 is the photocopy of the photos of the pipe fittings.

4. The complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product manufactured and sold by the opposite parties. But no steps were taken by the complainant for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner to ascertain the defects in the pipe fittings. He only produced photocopies of the photos of pipe fittings. From these, it is not possible to identify the defects. Further he had  stated that the products has 10 years warranty; but has failed to produce the warranty card to prove this contention.

5. Thus the complainant failed to prove a prima facie case against the opposite parties. In the absence of cogent evidence, we are not inclined to allow the prayer in the complaint.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed

Pronounced in open court on this the 14^thday of November, 2023.

     Sd/-                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                                        President  

                                                          Sd/-                  Vidya A

                                                                                 Member