By: Smt. Mini Mathew, Member
Facts in brief
Complainant booked for a plainer machine manufactured by Wood Tech Company Ltd. to the opposite party on 28/2/14 after paying an advance amount of Rs.5000/-. The total price of the machine was Rs.56000/-. After that on 6/3/14 complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.51000/- and had taken the plainer machine. At the time of purchase the opposite party herein had offered one year guarantee to the product and issued guarantee card to the complainant.
After that on 10/11/14 complainant noticed some defects to the machine and contacted the opposite party for repair. During that time opposite party offered that they would come to the house of the complainant and would repair the same. But even after repeated demands the opposite party did not do so. Subsequently on 12/12/14 complainant had taken the plainer machine to the opposite party's shop at Malappuram for repair. During that time opposite party collected the guarantee card from the complainant. After that on so many occasions complainant contacted the opposite party for getting back the repaired machine. But he is reluctant to do so by saying one or other excuses. After repeated demands on 20/3/15 opposite party returned the machine to the complainant after repair. But they did not returned the guarantee card to the complainant by saying that it was lost. On reaching home he try to use the machine and he noticed that the machine was not repaired and not in a working condition. On the very next day itself complainant went to the shop of the opposite party and informed him about these facts but he is not willing to repair the machine and he refused to return the guarantee card. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice from this Forum opposite party entered appearance and filed his version by denying all the contentions in the complaint. But opposite party admits that the complainant purchased the plainer machine from his shop after receiving an amount of Rs.56000/-. He further submits that he had informed the complainant that the manufacturer does not provide any guarantee to the machine supplied to the complainant. The complainant purchased the machine after knowing the fact. Another contention put forward by the complainant is that the machine is not having any defects and even now he is using the same. Now also it is in a working condition. Another allegation raised by the opposite party is that the complaint is barred for non -jointer of necessary parties. The manufacturer of the plainer machine ie Wood Tech Machinery, Ahmedabad is not a party in the proceedings. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence he prays for a dismissal of the complaint.
The main questions to be answered:-
(i) Whether the defects happened during the guarantee period?
(ii) Whether the complaint is barred for non -jointer of necessary parties?
(iii)Whether the opposite party is deficient in service?
(iv) If so, relief and cost?
Complainant's evidence consists of Affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and documents marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Opposite party field counter affidavit and documents marked as B1 and B2. After closing the evidence the case stood posted for hearing of both parties. On that day complainant was heard and opposite party was absent and there was no representation on his side. Thereafter the case was adjourned for orders.
Here both parties admits the transaction. Complainant herein had paid an amount of Rs.56000/- towards sale consideration and he had purchased the plainer machine from the opposite party on 28/2/14. On 10/11/14 on words the me chine became defective and the complainant alleges that all those complaint's happened during the guarantee period. Complainant produced Ext. A1 which proves that he had paid Rs.56000/- towards sale consideration for the purchase of the plainer meachine. But for proving the guarantee of the meachine no documents were produced by him before Forum. The main contention put forward by the complainant is that the guarantee card was kept by the opposite party while he was entrusted the meachine to the opposite party for repair. But he did not return the same to the complainant hence he is unable to produce the same before this Forum.
But opposite party alleges that complainant had purchased the meachine with the knowledge that it had no guarantee or warranty. On the side of the opposite party he produced two documents which were marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Both these documents are the Brochure used by Wood Tech company. On perusal of the documents noting stated about the warranty or guarantee of the meachine. Complainant paid Rs.56000/- towards the sale consideration. We cannot believe that complainant had paid such a huge amount for buying a meachine having no guarantee or warranty. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to adduce evidence before us to prove that aspect. They have not taken any steps before this Forum to prove that aspect. They have not even cared to cross examine the complainant.
Another contention of the oppostie party is that even now the meachine is in a working condition. Complainant thorough his evidence clearly mentioned that the meachine is not in working condition and he kept the same in his house. The opposite party ought have taken steps for the appointment of a commission for the examination of the meachine and to report about the present condition of the meachine before this Forum.
He was at liberty to take steps for the appointment of an expert commission to inspect the meachine and to file a report before this Forum regarding the present condition of the machine. Since no such action was taken by the opposite party and since he has not challenged the evidence given by the complainant we find that the meachine purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is not in working condition.
The issues raised by the opposite party regarding the non-jointer of necessary parties has been seriously considered by the Forum. The opposite party is the authorised dealer of the manufacturer. He cannot simply escape from his liability on the strength of certain hyper technicalities. Here in this particular case we find that opposite party who is a trader who happened to be the authorised agent of the manufacturer is trying to exploit the ignorance of a poor consumer. The opposite party sold a machine to the complainant for Rs.56000/-. Thereafter when the machine became non – functioning the dealer who is the opposite party cannot wash out his hands saying that it is for the manufacturer to get the grievance of the complainant redressed. We would say that we donot accept this proposition made by the opposite party and therefore we reject this proposition of non -jointer of necessary parties.
For the above said reasons we allow the complaint.
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10000/- for the deficiency of service committed by opposite party, Rs.5000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant, Rs.5000/- for loss of income and Rs.2000/- as cost. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 31st day of May, 2016
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A2
Ext.A1 : Cash receipts issued by opposite party.
Ext.A2 : Photo
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B2
Ext.B1 : Brochure used by opposite party .
Ext.B2 : Brochure used by opposite party .
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
