State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, vs 1. T.K.Rajani, W/O.Prasad, on 24 February, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/09/589
(Arisen out of order dated 22/04/2009 in Case No. CC 66/07 of District Kasaragod)
1. Manager, Prompt Technologies
Kerala
....Appellant
Versus
1. T.K.Rajani
Kerala
....Respondent
BEFORE :
HONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
, PRESIDING MEMBER
PRESENT:
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANATHPURAM APPEAL.No. 589/2009 JUDGMENT DATED : 24.02.2010 PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Manager, : APPELLANT Prompt Technologies, 29/17E, Opp.Lane No.3, TOC-H, School Road, Vyttila, Kochi - 19. (By Adv.Sri.N.R.Suresh Kumar) Vs 1. T.K.Rajani, W/o.Prasad, residing at Thadiyanvalappu, P.O.Kanhiradukka, Hosdurg Taluk. : RESPONDENTS 2. The Secretary, Kasargod District Lorry Operators Co-operative Society, Kottachery, Kasargod. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from this order passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in the file of C.C.No.66/07 dated 22.05.2009. The appellant is the second opposite party who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. The complainant is T.K.Rajani, purchased a speed governor through opposite party No.1 distributed by Prompt Technologies, Kochi and manufactured by Eastern Steel Industries became defective within the warranty period and as a result the vehicle could not be operated and thereby sustained loss. Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.40,800/- on different heads. Opposite party No.1 the Kasargod District Lorry Operators Co-operative Society filed version. According to them they had intimated the prompt technologies about the defects of the some of the speed governors. But the complainant has not intimated any such complaints to the 1st opposite party. But when they came to know about the complaint it was intimated to prompt technologies. As per the terms of purchase the said device the second opposite party prompt technologies is liable to rectify the defects. The opposite party No.2 appeared and filed by then written version and they contended that they were the whole sale dealers of the speed governor manufactured by M/s.Eastern Steel Industries, Mumbai. M/s.Eastern Steel Industries closed their office at Kochi two years back and now they are doing the business directly from Mumbai. In fact they admitted that they have received a complaint from the first opposite party. On the same day the mechanic replaced the defective speed governor. Thereafter the complainant had not made any complaints about the speed governor. The defects of the speed governor occurred on 13.04.07 and 25.04.07 were not intimated to 2nd opposite party on the two complaints received they had made speedier follow up or rectified the defects. They are also ready to rectify the defect of the speed governor if there is any mistake. Hence there is no deficiency in service.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4. The Forum below relied a decision of the National Commission Tech Imajins Equipment Ltd. V. CMC Ltd. reported in 2008 CTJ 574 (CP) NCDRC. The Forum below taken a view that since the defects in speed governor carrying a warranty not satisfactorily rectified by opposite party No.2 during the warranty period, the complainant would be treated as a consumer of the service envisaged under warranty in view of the decision cited above. The Forum below rightly answered all the question raised for the consideration and found that the Prompt Technology, Kochi (O.P.No.2) is liable for deficiency in service and direct them to take back the speedy governor and refund Rs.10,800/- the purchase bills of the speedy governor with compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the loss and sufferings caused to the complainant.
The appellant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal came before the Commission the Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that 2nd opposite party is already only a dealer and manufacturer is alone liable and responsible. In further contended that the complainant is a fleet owner and not coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent/ complainant also present in person. This Commission perused the documents and heard both sides. It is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with the law and evidence and it is legally sustainable. The appellant is not having any liberty to raise is a contention that the manufacturer is alone liable and responsible. He admitted that his sold this article to the complainant. Another contention raised by the appellant is that the complaint is not consumer accordance to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It also not legally stand before this commission. The question is whether he purchased this speed governor for his livelihood or commercial is not legally sustainable. He filed this complaint within the warrantee period. The National Commission is found that during the warranty period the complainant is come to be treated as a consumer of the service envisage under the warranty in view of the decision of the National Commission (cited in the Judgment). We are not seening any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is strictly accordance with law and evidence.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. Hence the points are answered accordingly.
M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Kb.
Pronounced
Dated the 24 February 2010
[HONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA]
PRESIDING MEMBER