Complaints filed on: 04-09-2020
Disposed on: 24-11-2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.50/2020
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
Complainants: -
B.R.Chandrashekhar
S/o Revanna,
Aged about 37 years, Mechanic, R/at Bellavi Road, Bhimasandra,
Tumakuru
(By Sri.N.M.Shivashankar, Advocate)
V/s
Opposite party:-
Proprietor,
Sri Rudreshwara Engineering Works, 2nd Main Road,
New Mandipete, Tumakuru
(By Sri.Bendre Kumar.T, Advocate)
ORDER
SRI. C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed under section 35 of the CP Act, 2019 to direct the Opposite party (herein called as OP) to refund the amount of Rs.13,500-00 paid on 04-09-2019 towards boiler with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of payment till its repayment and award compensation a sum of Rs.10,000-00 along with litigation expenses.
2. It is the case of complainant that he has purchased boiler from the OP on 04-09-2019 by paying Rs.13,500-00 for his newly constructed house to get hot water for bath. The OP even after receipt of amount did not issue bill and postponed the same on one or other pretext. Lastly the OP has issued receipt on 11-06-2020. It is further case of complainant that six months after the purchase crack has developed in the boiler and hot water was coming out of it. On the complaint given by the complainant, the OP got repaired by welding the crack portion. Two days after its use again the same problem started and then the complainant requested for refund of the amount or replacement of the boiler. The OP has refused to receive the legal notice dated 17-08-2020 hence, this complaint.
3. The OP in response to notice appeared through his learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant had purchased boiler from him in the year 2019 at the time of his house warming ceremony. It is the case of OP that he told the complainant to fix control wall to the boiler but the complainant has not fixed as a result it had come for repairs. Even after the repairs the complainant has not fixed control wall. There is no problem in the boiler but the complainant has filed this false complaint when he demanded balance amount of the boiler.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 documents. The OP proprietor Sri.Shivarudraiah has filed his affidavit evidence.
5. We have heard the oral arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and OP in addition to the written brief submitted by the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under.
- Whether the complainant proves that the OP has sold defective boiler?
- Is complaint is entitled to the relief sought for?
6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: In the partly affirmative for the
below
REASONS
7. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the boiler supplied by the OP is defective and it has developed crack within six months from the date of purchase. Though the OP has repaired the boiler it did not function. As against this the learned counsel for the OP argued that the complainant has not fixed regulator at the time of installation of the boiler. The OP is ready to repair the boiler. The learned counsel for the complainant replied that already the complainant has installed electric geyser since the boiler did not function even after its repair.
8. The OP though has not disputed purchase of boiler by the complainant on 04-09-2019 but the OP has come up with defense that the complainant has not paid entire price of the boiler. The complainant has produced Ex.P1 Cash/Credit bill dated 11-06-2020 for Rs.13,500-00. It indicates that boiler quantity is 100 ltrs. It is not mentioned in Ex.P1 bill that the complainant has paid part of the boiler amount. This indicates that the complainant has paid entire price of the boiler on the date of purchase i.e. on 04-09-2019. The conduct of OP indicates that he has postponed the issue of bill to the complainant for more than nine months from the date of sale. It was the duty of OP to prepare bill immediately after sale and give it to the complainant by mentioning how much amount he has paid. The OP in the written version or affidavit evidence not disclosed how much amount is due by complainant. It shows that the OP has come up with false plea that complainant has not paid entire price of the amount on date of purchase. In fact the complainant had paid part of the boiler amount, the OP would have disclosed in the written version and affidavit evidence how much amount payable by the complainant. Therefore, the defense taken by OP that the complainant has not paid entire price of the boiler is not acceptable.
9. The OP in his affidavit stated that when the complainant demanded for bill he asked for balance payment. It was the duty of OP to prepare bill on the day of sale i.e. on 04-06-2019 and he could have endorsed on the bill later on if any balance amount paid by the complainant. Though the OP in his written version paragraph No.6 admitted purchase of boiler by complainant in the month of August, 2019 no explanation is coming why he did not prepare bill on the day of sale.
10. The OP next defense is that the complainant has not fixed control wall to the boiler. The complainant in his evidence stated that he has fixed control wall at the time of installation. The complainant has produced Ex.P5 five photographs of the damaged boiler. The OP admitted that within six months from the date of sale cracks were developed in the boiler and leakage of hot water. The complainant case is that two days after its repair again cracks developed and leakage started. The materials placed by the complainant prove that the OP has sold defective boiler which is not in working condition. Already the complainant has installed electric geyser as such it is not necessary to direct the OP to repair the damaged boiler. On the contrary the OP shall refund the price of boiler along with compensation of Rs.5,000-00 for mental agony to the complainant. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed directing the OP to refund the price of boiler a sum of Rs.13,500-00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order. In case the OP fails to comply with the order within the stipulated period the amount carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment.
It is further order that OP shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs.5,000-00 to the complainant within 30 days otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of default till payment.
Furnish free copy of order to the complainant and opposite party.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24th day of November, 2021).
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
