Date of filing: 06.01.2018 Date of Order:03.10.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE 03rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 01 / 2018
Patnam Sankar Guru Swamy,
S/o P. Eswaraiah, aged 60 years,
Tadipatri Bypass Road,
Jammalamadugu Town,
YSR Kadapa District. ….Complainant.
Vs.
Baba Services, Rep. by its Proprietor,
Spares, Sales and Services, Old Room No. 5,
George Club Complex, T.B. Road,
Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. ….. Opposite party.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 26.9.2018 in the presence of Sri L. Siva Sankar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) to direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs. 25,000/- being costs of cooler along with interest at 17% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization, to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for causing deficiency in service, to pay Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant purchased one 4 X 2 of SS body – 3 cooler box for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from opposite party on 14.01.2017 under bill No. 2263 and it has one year warranty from the date of its purchase. The cooler worked well for a period of three months only and later did not function well as there was cooling of water coming out of water cooler. The complainant brought the same to the notice of O.P. and he handed over defective cooler to O.P. and O.P. repaired the cooler and returned, still the problem was there and in spite of several requests not rectified the defect by O.P. Since 15-4-2017 the complainant has been running around the opposite party number of times, but there was no proper response and caused physical strain and mental agony. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and financial loss to him. The complainant also issued legal notice on 28.11.2017 to O.P. and O.P. replied on 01.12.2017 with false allegations. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite party filed written version denying the allegations regarding deficiency in service on his part and not responded for the complainant’s call for repairing of cooler box causing financial loss to him and warranty to the cooler box and called upon the complainant to prove all of them. It is further averred that the complainant has purchased the cooler for commercial purpose and he used the same for shop and not for his personal use. So the same is commercial transaction and hence, complaint is not maintainable before his forum.
4. The warranty of one year is only for compressor and not for cooler body whenever the complainant reported about the defects they rectified and returned to the complainant and no deficiency in service on their part and no manufacturing defect of the cooler sold to the complainant by O.P. He issued suitable reply to the notice issued by the complainant but filed this complaint with false allegations. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. No oral evidence has been let in by parties, but on behalf of the complainant his affidavit is filed and got marked Exs. A1 to A4 and on behalf of opposite party his affidavit is filed and got marked Exs. B1 & B2.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record by the parties.
7. On the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, if so to what extent?
- To what relief?
8. Point Nos. i and ii: These two points are connected to each other, hence, they are discussed together for the sake of convenience and better understanding.
9. It is contended on behalf of complainant that the cooler purchased by him under Ex. A1 did not function well after three months of its purchase, though there was one year warranty the O.P. is not responded to replace the same. Therefore, he is entitled for return of his amount apart from amounts for deficiency in service, mental agony and costs and he proved the same by filing Exs. A1 to A4 and his affidavit.
10. Per contra learned counsel for O.P. contended that the cooler transaction is a commercial transaction as the complainant purchased the same for his business purpose. So the complaint is not maintainable. He also contended that the warranty was only for compressor and not for cooler body and though there was some minor defect that was rectified. But the complainant wants his purchased money of Rs. 25,000/- though he paid only Rs. 22,000/- and still there is balance of Rs. 3,000/- and the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.P. and complainant is not entitled for any releifs.
11. The complainant purchased water cooler box under Ex. A1 invoice dt. 14.01.2017 to keep cool drinks, water packets and other things in his shop to sell the same to the customers. A perusal of Ex. B1 photocopy of exhibit A1 shows that the complainant is still balance of Rs. 3,000/- to O.P. The complainant suppressed the said fact and filed this complaint stating that he had paid Rs. 3,000/- subsequently by manipulating the same in Ex. A1 without signature of O.P. for receiving amount of Rs. 3,000/-. Though Ex. A1 bill was raised for Rs. 25,000/- still balance to be paid is Rs. 3,000/- to O.P. by the complainant. So the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands more mover the complainant purchased the article under Ex. A1 for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Coming to the next aspect with regard to one year warranty to the article purchased by the complainant under ex. A1 is concerned a perusal of Ex. A1 shows that warranty was given one year from the date of its purchase to the compressor of the cooler. There was no such guarantee given to the body. No material whatsoever has been filed by the complainant to prove that there was warranty of one year to SS Body – 3 given by O.P. Though there was some problem with the functioning of body, the same was rectified as requested by the complainant by O.P. There is also no complaint by the complainant regarding functioning of compressor of SS Body-3 purchased by him under Ex. A1. The O.P. attended to effect repairs of body whenever requested by O.P. The question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party does not arise. So the complainant in this case clearly failed to prove any of the allegations against O.P. and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs against O.P. Accordingly, points i & ii are answered against the complainant.
13. Point No. iii:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 03rd day of October, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex. A1 Copy of invoice bill dt. 14-1-2017 issued by opposite party.
Ex. A2 Office copy of legalnotice dt. 28-11-2017.
Ex. A3 Postal receipt.
Ex. A4 Copy of reply notice dt. 01-12-2017 issued by the opposite party.
Exhibits marked on behalf of opposite party :-
Ex. B1 P/c of cooler.
Ex. B2 Self attested bill dt. 14.1.2017 issued by opposite party to the complainant.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) Sri L. Sivasankar Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
2) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for Opposite party
B.V.P
