Date of filing : 22-12-2011
Date of order: 28-04-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 357/2011
Dated this, the 28th day of April 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
B.Ramakrishna Bhat, } Complainant
S/o. Late Krishna Bhat, Advocate,
R/at ‘Srikrishna’ at Karandakkad,
Kasaragod Kasba village,
Kasaragod Taluk & Post.
(In Person)
1. The Proprietor, Srikrishna Trading Company, } Opposite parties
Anebagilu, near new Bus Stand,
Kasaragod Kasba village,
Kasaragod Taluk & Post
(Adv.Benny Jose, Kasaragod)
2. The Manager, Sintax Industries Ltd,
20/1148(1) Karamana Junction,
Trivandrum. 695002.
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Bereft of unnecessaries the case of complainant is that the Syntax Water Tank having a capacity of 1000 litres he purchased on 20-01-2010 for `6050/- from opposite party No.1 the dealer of opposite party No.2, the manufacturer of syntax water tank became defective and he noticed the leakage of water tank on 01-07-2011. Though he informed this matter to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 they were not ready to redress the grievance of the complainant. Therefore the complaint.
2. Though notices were issued to both opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version. But opposite party No.2 remained absent inspite of receipt of notice. Hence opposite party No.2 had to be set exparte.
3. According to opposite party No.1 they never offer 5 years guarantee for the Syntax Water Tank. Usually syntax water tank is a defect free one and it will be useful for several years without any complications. The leakage may be result of some extraneous force and not because of any manufacturing defect. Though opposite party No.2 assured that they will sent their men but they failed to keep that promise. Further on realizing that opposite party No.2 is not acting customer friendly they cancelled the business dealing with opposite party No.2 thereafter. The opposite party No.1 is only a dealer and if there is any manufacturing defect to the Water Tank, the opposite party No.2 alone is liable. The opposite party No.1 had done everything possible as a distributor. Even if there is any defect in the product and lack of after sale service it is the responsibility of opposite party No.2 to make good the loss sustained to the complainant. Therefore the opposite party No.1 has to be absolved from liability.
4. After filing version complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 & A2 marked.
5. Complainant as PW1 in his affidavit reiterated what is stated in his complaint. In cross-examination he deposed that he is a customer of opposite party No.1 since long and except the present complaint he had no other complaints against opposite party No.1.
6. Usually a fibre/plastic tank can be used for so many years. In the case of complainant that within 1 ½ years it became leaking. According to complainant the leaking is due to manufacturing defect of the plastic water tank. There is no contra evidence forthcoming to disprove the case of the complainant.
7. Therefore the complaint stands allowed. However, in the given circumstances of this complaint we do not find any substance to fasten any liability on 1st opposite party to compensate the complainant.
Hence the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to take back the syntax water tank from the premises of the house of the complainant and refund its purchase price `6050/- together with a cost of `3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of complaint till payment. Failing which `6050/- will carry interest @ 9% from today till payment.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Photocopy of the entry made in the note book.
A2. Photo of the tank.
PW1.Ramakrishna Bhat.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
