Complaints filed on: 08-04-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 26-09-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.36/2021

Shri.Rudesh T.R. S/o Renugappa,

A/a 29  years, Somalapura Post,

Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,

Idakanahalli, Somalapura,

Tumakuru, Karnataka-572 222.

……….Complainant

 (By Smt. Durga Devi .M, Advocate)

V/s

1.       M/s Kovai Classic Industries,

          No.1, Iyer Hospital Road,

          Singanallur Post, Koyampuththoor,

          Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

2.       The Managing Director/Proprietor,

          Kovai Classic Industries, No.1, Iyer

          Hospital Road, Singanallur Post,

          Koyampuththoor, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

……….Opposite Party

 (By Sri. C.J.Lakshminarasimha, Adv.,)

:ORDER:

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed against the OP U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP to refund Rs.5,25000/- paid towards the product i.e. KCI MAKE 7.5 HP COCONUT DE-HUSKER ALONG WITH CASHES AND TYRE TUBE DISK AND AXLE along with interest @ 18% pa from 07/09/2020 and Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 181% from 25/09/2020 towards compensation for livelihood loss incurred, Rs.14,500/- per month from 25^th September 2020 towards the interest loss calculated on the working capital invested to install the defective product and Rs.50,000/- compensation for repairing the damage that would be caused to the civil foundation for replacing the defective product and to make a new foundation for installing a new product from another manufacturer and further prays to direct the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and litigation cost as deemed fit by this Commission.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint as under:-

The complainant purchased KCI Make 7.5 HP Coconut De-husker along with chases and tyre tube disk and axle from the OPs who are the manufacturers of agricultural machineries and equipments based in Coimbatore for a consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- by making full payment on 24^th September 2020 and same day product was delivered.   It is further submitted that he did few trials using the large batch size with different sizes of coconuts in the next couple of days and found that the product supplied by the Opposite Parties failed to de-husk all sizes of coconuts and to his worst fears it started breaking the coconuts (raw materials) instead of de-husking, defeating the very purpose for which product was purchased. 

2(a).  The complainant further submits that he had first shared the Video of Defects in Electronic form by Whatsapp to Opposite Parties in September 2020 and followed up over multiple occasions on phone and whatsapp to rectify the defect, but service engineer visited after 35 days of follow ups, but failed to rectify and returned back.   It is further submitted that in spite of many follow ups and requests, the OPs not expedite the servicing of defective product and poor responses continued and the issue remained unresolved since September 2020.

2(b).  The complainant further submitted that after losing hope of getting the defective product serviced by the OPs, he and his representatives escalated the issue of defective product and deficiency in service to the Managing Director, Mr.Vasanth Raj and he had promised to resolve the issue, but he even stopped taking calls and did not adhere to his words and therefore the complainant last the hope.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice dated: 2^nd March 2021 was sent to the OP, on receipt of the same, the replied on 16^th March 2021 declining to accept defects of their product supplied by them and but instead offered to send an engineer on humanitarian grounds as if they are doing charity to the farmer.  Hence, without no other alternative, the complainant filed this complaint.   

3.       After service of notice, the OP appeared and filed their version, wherein the OP contended that the OP is a manufacturer and exporter of high end machinery exclusively used in agriculture and farming industry and requested with the industry to sell Coconut De-husking technology machine or product for the purposes of coconut De-husking activities at his farm for all sizes of coconuts.  It is further contended that the machine is good in condition and the complainant because of lack of knowledge of how to utilize it in spite of clear instructions and directions misused and not handled the product properly and the product would de-husk all sizes of coconuts without breakage of coconuts fed to product.  The OP sold the product i.e. KCI Make 7.5 HP Coconut De-husker along with chases and tyre tube disk and axle with a total price tag of Rs.5,25,000/- inclusive of GST where the product cost was Rs.4,68,750/-  

3(a).  The OP further contended that the OP delivered the good conditioned product to the complainant on 25^th September 2020 as per the E-way bill NO.551204534788 dated:24^th September 2020 and also demonstration was carried out using a small size of less than 10 coconuts against demonstration properly through large batch size of coconut of different sizes with multiple trials to verify the quality, capacity, productivity, effectiveness and Efficiency of the product.  After demonstration by using all size of a coconut and trial to prove the working of the machine has been seen, observed, verified at the spot and after due satisfaction of the product, the complainant has purchased and hence there is no deficiency of service on their part.

3(b).  The OP further contended that the OP has not given any false guarantee, false description of the product and not deliberately conceal the important information about the products limitations to de-husk all types of a coconut without breakage of coconuts.  It is further contended that the complainant simply alleged the defects in the machine without producing proper evidence. 

3(c).   The OP further contended that the complainant shared and send a certain videos of defects in electronic form on 30^th September 2020 after 5 days when multiple trials were made regarding working condition of the machine and same was working properly without any deficiency/defect in the said product.  It is further contended that the complainant used the said machine in a wrong manner and the same was against to the guidelines issued by the OP for using the said product and the videos shared by the complainant shows that the said machine has been used in the wrong manner and not as per the guidelines issued by this OP. 

3(d).  The OP further contended that as per the request of the complainant, the OP deputed a person namely Mr.Kishore, a service specialist and said Kishore send a service specialist namely Mr.Balu to remove and fix the defects and restore the availability of the product.  Thereafter the complainant once again raised another complaint and due to Covid-19 across the country, the OP instructed the complainant through online also regarding the using of the said machine properly and send a qualified technical person for further instructions also, but in spite of specific instructions, the complainant using the said machine in a wrong manner and now blaming the OP and causing the reputation of the Industry.  It is further contended that the OP has taken all corrective actions to fix the defective product after the first visit of the service engineer on 1^st November 2020 and providing a good service by sending service engineer to correct the defective products.  There is no any defect in the machine. 

3(e).   The OP further contended that there was no any violation of or infringement of the terms and conditions of a said machine with regard to the quality, quantity, purity and its de-husking coconuts of all size without breakage of a coconuts.  Further, the legal issued by the complainant was suitably replied.  Due to mis-handling of the machine, the defects were occurred.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their side and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P14. One R.Parameshwaraiah, Authorised Officer on behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 2 has filed affidavit evidence.

5.       We have heard the arguments from both parties.  Both parties have also filed their written arguments.

1)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)                     Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

6.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

7.       On perusal of the complaint, version of the OPs and affidavit evidence of both parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased KCI Make 7.5 HP coconut De-husking along with chassis and tyre tube disk and axle from the OPs for a consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- by making full payment on 24^th September 2020 and on the same day the product was delivered.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant did few trials using the large batch size with different size of coconuts in couple of days and found that the product supplied by the OPs failed to de-husk all sizes of coconuts.  The complainant shared the video of defects in Electronic form by Whatsapp to OPs in September 2020 and follow-up over multiple occasions on phone and Whatsapp to rectify the defect.    The OPs service Engineer visited after 35 days of follow-ups, but failed to rectify the problem and returned.  Further, the complainant approached the managing Director Mr.Vasanth Raj regarding defective product and deficiency service.  The M.D. had promised to resolve the issue, later not responded.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:02.03.2021 to OP replied on 16.03.2021 declining to accept defects of their products and supplied by them and offered to send an Engineer on humanitarian grounds.  To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has produced Ex.P1 to P14. 

8.       Per-contra, the OPs contended that the OPs delivered the good conditioned product to the complainant on 25.09.2020 and also demonstration was carried out using a small size of less than 10 coconuts against demonstration properly through large batch size of coconut of different sizes with multiple trials to verify the quality, capacity productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of the product.  After demonstration by using all size of a coconut and the complainant has been seen, observed, verified at the spot, the working of the machine and after due satisfaction of the product, the complainant has purchased the product. 

9.       On perusal of the version, it is seen that the OPs admitted the fact that the complainant shared and send a certain videos of defects in electronic form on 30.09.2020 i.e. after five days of purchase.  As per request of the complainant, the OP deputed Mr.Kishore, a specialist and the said Kishore send another specialist namely Mr.Balu to remove and fix the defects and restore the availability of the product.    The OPs further admitted the fact that the complainant once again raised another complaint and due to COVID-19 across the country, the OP instructed the complainant through online also regarding the using of the said machine properly. 

10.     The main allegation of the OPs is that the complainant used the said machine in a wrong manner and the same was against to the guidelines issued by the OPs for using the said product.  But the OPs have not produced any copy of the guidelines pertaining to the product before the Commission and also not produced any evidence that their service personnel rectified the defects in the product.  If the complainant used the product/machine in a wrong manner and against to the guidelines, it is the OPs obligations to instruct the complainant how to use the product in right way. 

11.     The OPs relied on the following unreported citation i.e. Manager M/s Ashutos Goyal V/s Ashok Bhat, order on 01.05.2019 (Uttarkhand State commission), wherein it is held that:

“For providing fact of manufacturing defect, expert opinion is necessary”.

This citation is not applicable to the present case.  S.38(c) of the C.P. Act reads as follows:

“If the complainant alleges a defects in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis/test of the goods, obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner as may be prescribed and refer the sample to sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory to make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District commission within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by it.”

In the present case, based on the pleadings and documents, it can be determined that the product is not suitable to de-husk all sizes of coconuts and OPs are failed to rectify/remove the defects in the product, so expert opinion is not necessary.  Therefore, failed to rectify the defects in the product by the OPs also amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, it is just and proper to direct the OPs to refund Rs.5,25,000/- by receiving their product.   

12.     The complainant claimed compensation under the following heads:

Totally the complainant has claimed Rs.41,98,000/- as compensation and 18% interest for first two head compensation.  But the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to show that he was incurred loss and also not furnished any material to prove that he was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim the amount under first three grounds and he is entitled to only Rs.25,000/- as compensation.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

:O R D E R:

          The complaint is partly allowed with cost.

The OPs are directed to refund Rs.5,25,000/- to the complainant by receiving the product (i.e. KCI make 7.5 HP coconut De-husker along with chassis and tyre tube disk and axle.

The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and  Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.        

          Further, the OPs are directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order. 

          Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite parties at free of cost.

..