IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 25th day of January, 2024
Filed on: 16.08.2023
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.231/2023
between
Complainant:- | Opposite Parties:- |
Sri. Jaison .K.S 1. The Manager,
Kizhakkepunnaparambu Gee Electronics, 2nd Floor,
Mangalam Ward, Alappuzha-688007 2/39, 39A, Pattambi, Thrithala
(Party in person) Palakkad-679534
2. The Manager, Powerex Trading
New Bazar, Market.P.O,Muvattupuzha
Ernakulam-686673
(Adv. Rino Raj.R
ORDER
SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant is doing fabrication work for his work who purchased a Mitre saw cutting machine from the 2nd opposite party on 30/11/2021. The complainant alleged that the opposite party made believe him that they would give him a one-year product warranty as well as prompt service. But the product was found defective within a short period after the purchase and as per the direction of the 2nd opposite party the machine was entrusted to the 3rd opposite party. The defects were rectified and returned the product after 2 weeks to the complainant. But the defect persists and entrusted again the same for repairing. After a month, the complainant was informed that the defect was cured. In the presence of the 3rd opposite party’s technician and the manager, the complainant operated the machine and found that the machine was not properly functioning. The video of the same was served to the 1st opposite party by the 3rd opposite party. Thereafter the machine was sent to the service centre of the opposite party, they said that the machine’s alliance complaints occurred due to the manufacturing defect. The 3rd opposite party said that it cannot be repaired and informed they can provide another machine on paying more amount. The above acts of the opposite party caused severe mental agony to the complainant and hence filed this complaint and sought the following reliefs.
1. To direct the opposite parties to replace the machine with a new one or refund its price.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for deficiency in service and the fare of the rented machine.
2. Version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
The opposite parties contented that they admit the purchase of the product. The above case is bad for non jointer of the necessary party, as the manufacturer of the product is not made as a party to this case. The complainant being used, the product for commercial purpose and hence he is not a consumer and not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegation that the Machine became defective soon after the purchase is not correct. The machine is made for cutting wood and not aluminium. This fact is told to the complainant at the time of purchase.
In fact the machine was purchased on 30/11/2021 and the complaint first arose on 14/1/2022. On inspection of the machine by the technician, it is found that, the complaint of defective alignment in cutting the aluminium, is due to improper use of the machine, which can solely be used for cutting wood. In spite of defective use and causing damage to the machine this opposite parties repaired the same free of cost by considering customer relation and informed the complainant not to use the machine for cutting aluminium. Later on 19/10/2022, the complainant again complained about the defect of the machine and on scrutiny; it was found that the machine is again, used for cutting aluminum despite giving directions against improper use. However, the opposite parties repaired the machine free of cost and informed the complaint that, the machine was repaired. But he was not willing to take the delivery of the machine after repair and he demanded to refund of his money without any valid and legal reason. All other contrary allegations are denied by the opposite parties. Further, it is false that the machine is suffering from manufacturing defect. The allegation that, the opposite parties told that, the machine cannot be repaired and new machine will be given on paying an extra price are all false. The allegation that the complaint suffered mental agony due to the default of these opposite parties are not correct. The opposite parties have already repaired the machine, though it was caused due to improper use by the complainant and informed the complaint to take back the repaired machine in time. By suppressing the material facts the complainant now filed this complaint. Complainant filed this case with false allegations against the opposite parties. As per the warranty terms and conditions and safety instruction, the opposite parties are not liable to repair or replace the damaged machine, if the damage is caused due to improper use.
The pleadings in the complaint that the complaint is entitled for getting a fresh machine or its price are all false and baseless. The allegation that the complaint is entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,000/- for deficiency in service and towards fair of rented machine are all false. The complainant not met with any loss, damage or mental agony due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged. In the event of producing the machine before this Commission and on inspecting the same by a qualified technician, it can be seen that the machine is free from manufacturing defects. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. These opposite parties are always ready and willing to hand over the machine to the complainant, which is now free from any defect. Hence the complainant is to be dismissed.
3. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund or replacement of the disputed product
as sought for?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
3. Reliefs and costs?
4. Complainant appeared in person and he adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 were marked. Thereafter heard both sides.
5. Point No. 1 and 2:-
Ext.A1 dtd. 30/11/2021 is the copy of Tax Invoice of the product under dispute. Ext.A2 is the copy of job card dtd. 19/10/2022. Ext.A3 is the copy of guarantee registration. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the product from the 2nd opposite party on 30/11/2021. The complainant alleged that the machine became defective within a short period after the purchase. But said allegation was denied by the 1st and 2nd opposite party. The opposite party admitted in their version that the first complaint arose on 14/1/2022. As per Ext.A2 Job Card the product was entrusted to the opposite parties for repairing on 19/10/2022. Pw1, the complainant deposed that total 3 times he entrusted the machine for repair with the opposite party. The allegation raised by the complainant is that he is doing fabrication work and for cutting the aluminium he purchased the machine. But the counsel for opposite parties argued that it is specifically mentioned in their manual that the said machine is made for cutting wood and not aluminium. According to them, said fact was communicated to the complainant at the time of purchase. But the complainant argued that the said contention is not correct since the advertisement made by the opposite party through media that the said machine is used for both cutting wood as well as aluminium. But RW1 denied that they were not aware of such advertisements on online sites. Nothing is before us to prove said argument of the complainant. Per contra the opposite parties 1 and 2 produced Ext.B2, the manual of said machine and pointed out the safety instructions in B2, it is specifically mentioned that “ Mitre saws are intended to cut wood or wood-like products.” Further in page No.23 of said document it is mentioned that “ this tools is indented as a stationery machine for length ways and cross way cutting of wood with straight cuts as well as angle cuts”. It is noted that complainant admits that opposite party was served manual at the time of purchase. During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he used the machine as per the user manual. It appears that the complainant has not been able to produce sufficient evidence to show that the use of the machine includes wood cutting and aluminium cutting. Further the complainant admits that he used said machine for cutting aluminium that context the above arguments of the opposite parties is to be considered. In view of the above discussions, we find that the alleged complaint is not due to the manufacturing defect of the machine. Moreover, the opposite parties in their version it is mentioned that they repaired the machine free of cost and informed the complainant about it. But the complainant was not willing to take delivery of the same. Considering the evidence as such, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Since the complainant failed to prove that the disputed machine was manufactured for cutting both wood and aluminium. On going through the proceedings the 3rd opposite party was deleted from the party array. Therefore, we are constrained to disposed of the complaint with a direction to the complainant to take back the machine from the custody of opposite parties.
6. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 24th day of January, 2024.
Sd/- Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/- Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Jaison.K.S(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice dtd. 30/11/2021
Ext.A2 - Job Card
Ext.A3 - Copy of Guarantee Registration
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - K.P.Muhammedkutty(witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of Guarantee Registration
Ext.B2 - User Manual
Ext.B3 - Photograph
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Typed by:- Br/- Assistant Registrar
Compared by:-
