IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2016
Filed on 07.02.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
CC/No.40/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Deepthy Green 1. The Manager/Authorized Signatory
Chenganda, Thirunelloor P.O. Sahaj Solar Pvt. Ltd.
Cherthala, Represented by its Power of 445-450 Poddar Arcade
Attorney Holder T.K. Upendran Khand Bazar, Varacha Road
Ambika Sadanam Surat, India – 395 006
Thirunelloor P.O.
(By Adv. E.D. Zachariah) 2. The Manager/Authorized Signatory
TCI Express (A Division of TCI
Ltd.), Madhuram Estate, Near
Mulaji Dyeing, Sachin Plasna
Highway Road, Sachin
Surat – 394 230
3. The Manager/Authorized Signatory
TCI Express (A Division of TCI Ltd.)
Go down No.16, Ward No.8
SH Mount, Nagampadom P.O.
Kottayam – 686 006
(By Adv. K.T. Anishmon – for
opposite parties 2 & 3)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased solar panel from the opposite party for Rs.73,440/- on 22.7.2014 and the opposite party agreed to deliver it to the office of the complainant. The opposite party had sent the solar panel in 3 packets through the parcel service and on delivery at Cherthala, complainant has opened in presence of the parcel service person and the packet containing 2 solar panel was broken and has become out of use and it was not delivered and was taken by the parcel service person and it is in the custody of the first opposite party. Complainant issued several email communication to the opposite party, and requested useful solar panel as return the amount remitted by the complainant. But the opposite party deliberately withheld the solar panel and failed to return the amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is barred by non joinder of parties. The complainant had purchased with the condition of seller is not responsible for any damages during transportation of material of solar panels from the opposite party for Rs.73,440/- on 22.7.2014 invoice number – SSP1697. The said condition was mentioned clearly that ‘seller is not responsible for any damages during transportation of material’ and the said condition agreed by the purchaser at the time of purchasing the solar panels. The opposite party sent the said goods by the transport company named TCI Express and the goods were in a good condition while giving to the transport company to sent to the complainant. And this is the company policy that always checked the goods before sending. And there is no opposite party’s responsibility while goods in transit by transport company and that is their responsibility to transport the goods in good condition. The first opposite party was shocked when come to know from the complainant that panels were broken and therefore there is no liability of opposite party. Complainant has no right as refund from the opposite party.
3. As per the application filed by the complainant, the opposite parties 2 and 3 were impleaded. The version of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties is as follows:- The 3rd opposite party has no knowledge about the business of the complainant. It is true that first opposite party had sent three sealed packets to the complainant through 3rd opposite party’s parcel service. The 3rd opposite party has no knowledge about the condition of items contained in the parcel. At the time of delivery the complainant alleged that the articles contained in the packets were broken, hence the packets were not delivered to her. The same was intimated to the first opposite party without any delay. These opposite parties have no liability to pay any amount to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs.
4. The points for consideration are the following:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of the opposite parties.
6. According to the complainant, she had purchased solar panel from the first opposite party after paying Rs.73,440/-. Ext.A1 evidenced the same. It is an admitted fact that first opposite party sent the solar panel in 3 packets through second opposite party. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties admitted that the first opposite party had sent 3 packets to the complainant through parcel service. According to the complainant, the articles contained in the packets were as broken and hence those articles were not delivered to her. It was also admitted by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The point to be considered is who is liable to compensate the complainant. According to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties they have no liability to pay any amount to the complainant, since the goods were damaged not during the transit. The seller of the product is contractually and legally bound to provide the goods to the purchaser without any defect. In this case, the first opposite party failed to do so and seemingly he has been trying to escape from the liability by raising contentions of his own and not established or substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. The supply of defective goods to the complainant amounts deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. Hence we are of opinion that the first opposite party is bound to deliver the solar panel to the complainant as claimed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to deliver as defect free solar panel to the complainant worth Rs.73,440/- (Rupees seventy three thousand four hundred and forty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the first opposite party is directed to refund Rs.73,440/- to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing till realization. The first opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - T.K. Upendran (Witness)
Ext.A1 - True copy of the Invoice dated 22.7.2014
Ext.A2 - Postal receipt dated 27.12.2014
Ext.A3 - True copy of the lawyer’s notice dated 27.12.2014
Ext.A4 - Postal acknowledgement card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
True Copy // By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
