By Smt.  Beena. M, Member:-

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            2. Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- On 28-01-2019 the complainant had purchased a Sensor tap from  1^st opposite party, for his homely use, for an amount of Rs.8,100/-, which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  After the purchase, the complainant installed  the tap in his house, but it did not work properly due to the defect of sensor .   There after the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and intimated the defect regarding the tap and as per their instructions a service technician of Jogar Company  came to the complainant’s house and replaced the sensor. But even after replacing the sensor the same problem arose.   The complainant again made complaint and the      1^st opposite party arranged a company technician. On the same day the technician cleared the defect but  the defect is not cured properly  and started leakage problems. Thereafter the complainant removed the tap with the help of a plumber. When the complainant approached the     1^st opposite party with the tap and asked to replace the same but the 1^st opposite party not ready to replace the faulty tap and told that he is not liable for that and the company only has liability. After several conversation the 1^st opposite party suggested to complainant  to fit a filter in to the pipe line and change the Agile Cock with new one and assured that if any fault after that, he will return back the amount to the complainant.  But even after the complainant changed the Agile Cock and fitted a filter there was the same complaints happened again.  Thereafter the complainant booked complaint but no response received from the side of opposite parties. So, the complainant seeking compensation of Rs. 30,000/- including the commodity price, travel expenses, lose of time and mental agony.

            3. The Opposite parties  entered appearance and filed their versions.  The 1^st opposite party admitted the relationship with the complainant and not disputed the transaction. And he denied the other averments and allegations set forth in the complaint.  According to him the product which he delivered to the complainant is  good and high quality product . So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the 1^st opposite party.

            4. The second opposite party also admitted the relationship and transaction which are averred in the complaint but denied the other aspects . According to the opposite party No. 2 the product has no manufacturing defect at the time of sale. So there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of second opposite party.  

5. On perusal of complaint and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1.  Whether any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part

      of opposite parties?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

3.   Relief and cost.

6. The complainant examined as PW-1 and documents  Ext. A1   marked.  An expert commissioner was appointed in this case & he inspected the sensor tap and filed report. It was marked as Ext.C1. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version,  they cross examined the complainant and on behalf of opposite parties they filed  proof affidavit and  documents marked.  But after that there is no representation from the side of opposite party , hence the Forum set them ex parte.

7. Point No. 1 :- The case of the complainant that  he purchased a sensor tap, from opposite party No.1, manufactured by second opposite party, for an amount of Rs. 8100. The complainant noticed that the product is defective when he installed the tap. Several times complainant  approached  the opposite party No.1, on the instruction of them one  technician came to the house of the       complainant and  repaired, but the defects not cured.  The complainant  sustained much agony & hence filed this complaint.

8. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 & C1 marked. Ext. A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party No.1 dated 28/01/2016.  From this it can be seen that the complainant purchased a sensor tap for an amount of Rs.8,100/-. Ext.C1 report shows that the sensor tap is defective. The relationships, transaction between the parties herein are admitted by the both opposite parties. The only question remains to consider is whether there is any deficiency of service unfair trade practice happened from the part of the opposite parties.   An expert commission was appointed in this matter. After enquiry the expert commissioner, K.W.A plumber filed a detailed report regarding this matter.  He categorically reported the actual facts after his inspection.  The commissioner specifically reported that the tap which he examined having defects and the same happened due to the sensor imperfection.  There is no evidence or materials available to rebut the report of the commissioner .   The opposite parties filed version, proof affidavit and document also marked, but they failed to prove the statements narrated in the version and proof affidavit .     So, the point answered infavour of the complainant.

9. Point No. 2 :- From the above discussion the forum found the 1^st point infavour the complainant and so he is entitle to get compensation form the opposite parties .  

10. Point No. 3:-  Since the Points No.1 and 2 are found against the Opposite parties the Forum passing the order regarding relieves and cost as follows:-

            In the result, the complaint is allowed partly with cost. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.8,100/- (Rupees Eight thousand  one hundred only) as price of the product Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12^th  day of December2019.

Date of filing:01.07.2017.

                                                                                    PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                    MEMBER:     Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant.:-

PW1.              Ajay Vishnu. P                                 Complainant.                      

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Thomas. K.V.                                   Sales Manager,  T.P. Tiles Centre,

                                                                                Kalpetta.          

OPW2.          Dileessh.                                           Area Service –in charge,

                                                                                    Jaguar & Company,  Cochin.

Exhibits for the Complainant:    

A1.      Tax  Invoice.                                     dt:28.01.2016.

C1       Commission Report.                                 

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.      Authorisation Letter.

B2.      Warranty Certificate.

B3.      Letter.                                                dt:15.01.2018.

B4.      Warranty Certificate.

B5.      Copy of Smart Care Service Job Card.

B6.      Copy of Smart Care Service job card.