DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 25th day of March 2024
Filed on: 07/10/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 291/2020
COMPLAINANT
Cimmi George, S/o.Varkey, Chettisseril House, Hostel Junction, College Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661
(By Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s.Low Heat Driers Pvt. Ltd., Kizhakkambalam, Ernakulam District-683 562, Rep. by its Managing Director.
(op rep. by Adv.V.K.Isac, Lawyers’ Combine, Mahakavi G.Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-11)
F I N A L O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
This consumer complaint is filed by Cimmi George, Chettisseril House, Hostel Junction, Muvattupuzha against M/s.Low Heat Driers Pvt. Ltd, Kizhakkambalam as opposite party. The crux of the complaint is that lured by advertisement regarding superior quality rubber driers manufactured by the opposite party, the complainant decided to purchase rubber drier capable to generate 4 rubber sheets after 4 days drying in their heater. Believing the assurance of the opposite party the complainant placed orders for drier on 14.03.2020 and bought it paying Rs.30,000/- The drier was delivered on 12.06.2020 and altogether the complainant paid Rs.70,100/- towards the price of modern rubber sheet drier DRSD 240 and its accessories. As against the assurance given by the opposite party the sheet took 7 days instead of 4 days to get dry and all the complaints made by the complainant to the opposite parties were in vain and therefore the complainant approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party and thereby praying to issue direction to the opposite party to refund the price of the drier and its accessories ie, Rs.70,100/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
2) Notice
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3) Version o of the opposite party
The opposite party stated in their version that the drier took 7 days to dry rubber sheets loaded in the Drier, whereas the opposite party assured the purchaser that it takes only 4 days to dry the rubber sheets loaded in the Drier. For drying the ribbed rubber sheets as per the instruction the burning in furnace is required to be maintained by feeding fire wood periodically. If there is no burning in the furnace there will not be smoke or hot air to dry the sheets put in the chambers. The allegations made in the complaint are too vague without specifying any particular defect in the Drier sold to the complainant to enable the Commission to enquire into and to enter into a finding as to whether there is any particular defect in the drier supplied or not. The consumer complaint is made before the Commission is a casual manner with ulterior motives and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The opposite party is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and incorporated in the year 1987. The opposite party company is represented by its Managing Director Sri. K.I.Kuriakose. The opposite party is a small scale industrial unit, promoted by agriculturists to carry on the business of manufacturing devices mainly for drying of ribbed rubber sheets. One Sri.C.P. Philipose who is a postgraduate in Industrial Electronic Engineering and also a rubber cultivator in consultation with his friend, neighbour and class mate Sri.Rajan Paul a former Design Engineer in TELCO, who was also a rubber cultivator developed proto type of a Drier for drying of ribbed sheets so as to overcome many defects and limitations of the conventional driers of masonry construction.
4) Evidence
The complainant filed Exbt.A1 to A3 and the opposite party filed Exbt.B1 to B14. Exbt.A1 is filed by the complainant is tax invoice for Rs.70,100/- .
Exbt.A2 and Exbt.,A3 are email communications.
Exbt.B1 filed by the opposite party is the copy of patent
Exbt.B2 is the trip sheet.
Exbt.B3 is leaflet
Exbt.B4 is the brochure
Exbts.B5 to B14 are service reports.
The complainant has examined as PW1 and his deposition recorded.
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainants?
-
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) Point No. (i)
The Commission upon perusing all the documents produced from either side and on verification of the subject matter of the deposition of the complainant in box reached into the following inferences.
The complainant purchased a drier from the opposite party on payment of cost of Rs.70,100/- on 12.06.2020. It is stated by the complainant that the efficiency of the drier is inadequate and took 7 days instead of 4 days to get dry sheets and all the complaints made by the complainant to the opposite parties became vain. This is the main allegation of the complainant and the contention of the opposite party is that they have never received any complaints from any customers and it is due to the lack of proper skill in provided fire, the machine is not giving proper output, the opposite party produced service patent and above that had produced 13 documents to substantiate their claim that they have provided necessary services and follow up action. The complainant had not moved the Commission to get appointment of an expert to inspect the machine and to bring out and proved deficiency of service if any in the existing machine. Exbt.B2 to B14 very clearly shows that the opposite party had taken adequate care and proper attention in the case of the complainant and therefore point No. (i) is proved against the complainant.
7) Point Nos. (ii) and (iii)
Having found point No.(i) against the complainant, we do not have examined point Nos.(ii) and (iii).
In the result the complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 25th day of March 2024.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainants’ Evidence
Exbt. - complainant was having insurance coverage with National Insurance Company and had continued till 13.05.2016 as is evident from Exbt. A9. Exbt.A2 is a copy of letter.
Exbt.A3 - complainant had opened an account in Punjab National Bank Kaloor Kadavanthra on 19.05.2015.
Exbt.A4 complainant was issued insurance policy by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. From 03.06.2015 to 02.06.2016.
Exbt.A3 (3) and Exbt.A3 (4) are receipts and
Exbt.A4 sum insured and other details issued by the opposite party.
Exbt.A6 (2) is a letter of repudiation issued by the opposite party and
Exbt.A6 (3) also repudiation letter issued by the opposite party.
Opposite party’s evidence
Exbt.B1 is a proposal form signed by the complainant and
Exbt.B2 is the conditions of policy Exbt.B3 is prospects issued by the opposite party
