DATE OF FILING : 7.6.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.113/2010
Between
Complainant : Prinil George, S/o George,
Panthapatu House,
Uppukandom P.O.,
Kattappana,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sijimon K. Augustine.)
And
Opposite Party : The Proprietor,
General Agencies,
S.N.D.P. Junction, Muvattupuzha,
Muvattupuzha P.O.,
Ernakulam District.
(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)
O R D E R
SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
Complainant is an unemployed youth residing in Kattappana and he is conducting an oil mill under the self employment scheme. His oil mill is in the name and style of 'Angel oil mill'. The opposite party is a dealer of various machineries and mechanical equipments. The opposite party introduced the oil filter press manufactured by swastik company. According to the representation of the opposite party, the complainant gave order for the oil filter press manufactured by swastik company for an amount of Rs.38,000/-. On 20.9.2009, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by DD of Federal Bank, Kattappana branch. The balance amount is also paid through the DD of Federal Bank Kattappana branch on 22.10.2009. The opposite party sent the machine as parts and parts through “Alleppey Parcel Service”. Complainant collected the same from ABT Kattappana in the month of November, 2009. The opposite party along with fitters namely Thankappan and Sasi came to Kattappana and fitted the machinery. As the pulley issued by the company is not proper, the complainant had purchased pulley and belt as per the direction of the opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.3000/-. Complainant also purchased one H.P. Motor worth Rs.3,400/-. That is also as per the direction of the opposite party. The opposite party collected Rs.6,000/- towards fitting charge from the complainant. In order to install the oil filter press the complainant hired a new room for a rent of Rs.2,500/- per month. Eventhough it was assembled and fitted, it was not properly functioned and no oil was filtered out. This fact was intimated to the opposite party and the opposite party sent an engineer from Ernakulam and his efforts also become failed. Then the opposite party assured that they were ready to replace the disputed oil machinery. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party in several time but they did nothing. The oil filter press was kept idle in the premises of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this petition before the Forum, alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party. He is requesting a redressal for his complaint.
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
2. The opposite party filed written version. In the written version their main contention is that the manufacturer is liable to replace the oil filter press supplied by the opposite party. The thing is that about the cold climate of Kattappana, because of cold climate, oil clotted in the plates of the machine. Due to this clotting, oil is leaked out and no manufacturing defect occurred. They stated that no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW 1 and Exts.P1 to P6(series) and Ext.C1 Commission Report marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 & R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.P1 to P6(series). Ext.P1 is the copy of invoice dated 29.10.2009 issued by the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of DD dated 20.9.2009. Ext.P3 is also a DD copy dated 22.10.2009. Ext.P4 is the cash receipt dated 2.11.2009 issued from Alleppey Parcel Service. Ext.P5 is the professional courier receipt in two numbers and Ext.P6(series) are the photographs of disputed oil filter. In the side of the opposite party, DW1 and one witness examined as DW2 and marked Ext.R1 and Ext.R2. Ext.R1 is the cash receipt of oil filter and Ext.R2 is the sale invoice copy.
In this case, no contention regarding the question of jurisdiction raised by the opposite party in the written version. The opposite party raised such an issue at the time of hearing. We find that such a contention have no base, the opposite party have no right to raise such an issue at the time of hearing. Moreover, the opposite party's agent approached the complainant at Kattappana and accepted the order for oil filter. After filing this petition, the complainant produced an Expert Commission application for site inspection. Forum appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Adv:Smt.Lissi M.M was appointed as Commissioner. The commissioner duly served 3 days notice to both parties, but the opposite party has not co-operated with the commissioner. The Commission Report was filed on 2.9.2010 and it is marked as Ext.C1.
As per the Commission Report, the disputed oil filter is not in working condition. The attempt of working was failed, is reported. The report also stated that complainant is keeping the machine in a separate room. No other fitting is there. The condition of the machine reveals the fact that the machinery is not working and kept idle in the premises of the complainant. PW1 as unemployed youth started this establishment for his livelihood. The machine was installed by the opposite party's technicians. They never made it defectless. Ext.P1 document shows the guarantee of the disputed machinery. In the written version, the opposite party admitted that the machinery is having service defects and in spite of repeated attempt, the opposite party failed to cure the defects. Eventhough the oil filter was assembled and fitted, it was not properly functioned. Ext.C1 Commission Report point 1 and 2 stated that the machinery is not working and kept idle in the premises of the complainant. We have no chance to disbelieve the Commission Report. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has kept the machine idle for the last one year because of the act of the opposite party. The complainant can not work with the machine which was purchased for his livelihood. Hence we award Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the act of the opposite party.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
In the result, the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to repair the disputed machine or replace the disputed machinery or to pay Rs.38,281/- as per Ext.P1 within one month of time to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost and Rs.5000/- as compensation to this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2010
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Prinil George Philip
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - M.U. Poulose (Paily)
DW2 - M.G. Sivadasan
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of invoice dated 29.10.2009 issued by the opposite party.
Ext.P2 - Copy of DD dated 20.9.2009.
Ext.P3 - Copy of DD dated 22.10.2009.
Ext.P4 - The cash receipt dated 2.11.2009 issued from Alleppey Parcel Service.
Ext.P5 - The professional courier receipts – 2 Nos.
Ext.P6(series) - The photographs of disputed oil filter.
Ext.C1 - Commission Report dated 2.9.2010.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the cash receipt of oil filter issued by the opposite party.
Ext.R2 - Copy of the sale invoice No.111 dated 13.10.2009.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
