State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Rajaram R. Jakhotiya Prop. Shri ... vs Shri. Tanajirao H. Dhanavade on 9 October, 2019
A/00/1870 1
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/00/1870
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/09/2000 in Consumer complaint no.83/2000 of District
Forum, Sangli)
Shri Rajaram Ratnlal Jakhotiya,
Prop.Shri Sainath Sales
991, Pethbhag, Balaji Chowk, Sangli. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
Shri Tanajirao Hambirrao Dhanavade,
At Post : Bhalwani, Tal.Khanapur, Dist.Sangli. ............Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, PRESIDENT
Hon'ble Dr.S.K.Kakade, MEMBER
For the appellant:
Adv.Suhas Sheth For the Respondent: Adv.B.S.Khilare for the respondent.
Adv.M.M.Naik for third part, Anil D. Dhere.
Mr.Doulat Jadhav, A/R for Texmo Industries ORAL ORDER Per Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President Heard submissions at Bar.
In continuation with order dated 06/06/2019, we had already heard learned advocate Mr.Suhas Sheth appeared on behalf of the appellant. Appeal is preferred against the order dated 20/09/2000 passed by the learned District Forum, Sangli whereby the award was passed against opponent, Rajaram Ratnlal Jakhotiya, c/o.Sainath Sales, Pethbhag, 991, Balaji Chowk, Sangli 416 416 and the opponent was directed to refund sum of Rs.21,990/- to the complainant with interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. from 21/07/2000 until A/00/1870 2 realization and sum of Rs.20,000/-towards economic and mental harassment of the complainant. Litigation costs were awarded in the sum of Rs.500/-. Entire amount payable within 30 days failing which outstanding amount will carry interest @18% p.a. Consumer complaint relates to the cash memo bearing no.1035 dated 21/02/2000 issued in favour of the complainant with particulars mentioned as "Bore well machine" 2/20 stage HP, TARO Sub-Motor Pump, 4 2900 RPM/Three Phase, TYPe-TF15/TRF1020, SR No.21362/99 including Pipe, Cable & other ancillary material and sum of Rs.21,990/- paid in cash by the complainant to Shri Sainath Sales.
The grievance of the complainant is that instead of Texmo company's motor pump, Taro Sub-motor pump was delivered which itself is unfair trade practice on account of opponent. Further more, there was deficiency in service as bore motor pump which was fitted inside the bore well never started nor water was received from outlet pipe, one Amol Dhere was instrumental for to fit the water pump. Since it did not start, he assured that he will come with owner. Thereafter, the complainant enquired with Manager of the shop. He informed the complainant that the owner of M/s.Sainath Sales suffered from heart attack and asked complainant to come after two days. Nobody from shop came to complainant's field to attend the installation of bore well water pump. In the result, therefore, the complainant who suffered for want of water to the grape plantations, bought water from outside. The complainant had requested by sending notice by RPAD to the owner of the shop to start the motor pump within 4 days failing which claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, but having received the notice, nobody attended on the field to start the submersible water pump. Therefore, the complainant had to suffer heavy economic loss in the field for loss of grape crop. Thus, the complainant had prayed for refund of the amount in the sum of Rs.21,990/- together with compensatory interest @18% p.a. During A/00/1870 3 the last hearing, since objection was taken that the manufacturer of the motor pump was not before us nor Anil Dhere who visited the field as servant of M/s.Sainath Sales to install the water pump in the bore well, we had directed issuance of notice to Anil Dhere C/o.Anil & Sunil Motor Rewinding Works at Shigaon, Tal.Walva, Dist.Sangli as well as manufacturer of Texmo Submiersible pump. Both of them attended today. According to the learned advocate for Mr.Anil Dhere (intervener) Dhere never visited the field of the complainant on behalf of the seller of the water pump. The employee of the Texmo Industries did not dispute that Taro Motor Pump is one of the variant of submersible water pump of the Texmo Motor Pump sold through M/s.Sainath Sales.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that water motor pump was subject of invoice mentioned above. It had struck off the word "Texmo" in the cash memo for Rs.21,990/-. We, therefore, do not wish to join Texmo Water Motor Pump Company as opposite party so as to widen consumer dispute unnecessarily in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In our view, when M/s.Sainath Sales sold the submersible water pump to the complainant, it was obligatory on the part of M/s.Sainath Pump as seller of sub-motor pump to ensure that water motor pump must start functioning in the bore well belonging to the complainant. Since that was no done, the impugned award was passed against M/s.Sainath Sales, considering facts and circumstances of the case justified it. If at all according to M/s.Sainath Sales, M/s.Texmo Company is also responsible, he had liberty to follow the proceedings against the company before the competent court. We must, however, maintain the award passed by the learned District Forum because there is not only deficiency in service after sale of sub-water pump but also unfair trade practice in not ensuring installation and to start of the submersible water pump. Appropriate installment of the water pump in the bore well was necessary. We, therefore, dismiss this A/00/1870 4 appeal. Additional costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent/complainant.
Dictated and Pronounced in the Open court on 9th October, 2019.
[ Justice A.P.Bhangale] PRESIDENT [Dr.S.K.Kakade] MEMEBR pg