State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.K.Vijayan &Others vs Trissur Corporation on 23 May, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/272/2017 ( Date of Filing : 20 Apr 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/580/2010 of District Trissur) 1. P.K.VIJAYAN &OTHERS PANNIKKARA KINI KOLPADAVU, PLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KURINJATTA LANE, AYYANTHOLE,TRISSUR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. TRISSUR CORPORATION THE SECRETARY, TRISSUR CORPORATION, TRISSUR. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 23 May 2022 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 272/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23.05.2022 (Against the Order in C.C. 580/2010 of CDRF, Thrissur) PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANTS: P.K. Vijayan, Convenor, Pannikkara Kini Kolpadavu, Plavalappil House, Kurinjatta lane, Ayyanthole, Thrissur, Pin. 680003. K.S. Balakrishnan, S/o Sankarankutty, Kuriyakottu House, Puthurkkara, Ayyanthole, Thrissur, Pin. 680003. (By Adv. Unnikrishnan . V) RESPONDENTS: Thrissur Corporation rep by Secretary, Office of Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur- 680001. RAIDCO Kerala Ltd, represented by Managing, Director, Kannur, Pin. 670001. (By Adv. Nalanchira P. Krishnankutty for R2) Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd, Rep by Managing Director, 1st Floor, 39/1880A, Olaparath, A.M. Thomas Road, Valanjambalam, Ernakulam- 682016 (By Adv. Menon & Menon ) JUDGMENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R : MEMBER The complainant in C.C. No. 580/2010 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (District Forum / Commission for short) has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.02.2017 of the District Forum. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:- The complainant purchased a motor and a pump, said to be manufactured by the 3rd opposite party, through 1st and 2nd opposite parties, for Rs. 4,19,000/-. It was purchased under Government Scheme "People Planning Campaign for Agriculture (Paddy)" and was used in Pannikkara Kini Kolpadavu in connection with paddy cultivation. The motor burnt out after a month of its purchase and the repairs done by the 2nd opposite party were futile. It is alleged that the order was for 50 HP (37 KW) pump, whereas the 2nd opposite party supplied a motor with 22KW only. No bills were given. The motor is not having any machine number or manufacturer's name. The frame number in the motor and warranty card differs. The complainant further alleged that the equipment was damaged within such a short time because of the low quality of the items supplied by the opposite parties; resulting in great loss to the complainant/farmers. Hence the complaint was filed for replacement of the motor and pump with a brand new one in addition to compensation and cost.
3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed versions. In their version, the 1st opposite party, Thrissur Corporation, stated that the supply of motor and pump was a part of a scheme under People's planning programme of the Government of Kerala to improve basic facilities in agricultural sector. The implementation officers were Principal Agricultural officer and Deputy Director of Agriculture. The convenor of the scheme was Deputy Director of Agriculture who made all arrangements for purchasing and handing over the motor and pump. The corporation has no role/responsibilities in the implementation of the scheme, and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
4. The 2nd opposite party, Raidco Kerala Ltd, admitted purchase and supply of motor and other accessories to the complainant. The equipments were delivered as per the order and it was operated to the satisfaction of the complainant and implementing officer etc. The motor was burnt because of the improper and careless use and fitting of a starter which was mismatching. However they repaired the motor at their own cost as a special case and showed its working to the complainant. Other allegations are baseless and hence they are not liable to replace the motor and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
5. The 3rd opposite party, M/s. Kirloskar Ltd, the manufacturers of the motor, states that the 2nd opposite party purchased the motor from their authorised dealer and they have no privity of contract with the complainant. Their service personnel inspected the motor and found that the starter was mismatching which caused all problems. As a special case they rectified the complaint and made the motor working. There is no manufacturing defect. As there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Evidence consisted of Exts. P1 to P6 on the side of the complainant, Exbts. R1 to R4 filed by 2nd opposite party and Exbts R5 to R8 by 3rd opposite party. The report of the expert commissioner was marked as Exbt. C1. The complainant filed proof affidavit and counter proof affidavits were filed by 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the District Commission dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
7. We heard the counsel for the appellant and 3rd respondent and perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the respondents supplied different product than which was ordered and it was of low quality. The equipment became unusable within a short time which resulted in great loss to the farmers of the Kolepadavu. The District Commission dismissed the complaint without any basis. Non- impleading of necessary party and requirement of additional documents are not relevant. He prayed for allowing the complaint by ordering replacement of the equipments with compensation and costs.
8. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that there is no manufacturing defect to the motor manufactured by them. It was purchased by the 2nd respondent from the authorized dealer of the 3rd respondent and it was assembled by them. The motor was working at the time of inspection by the commissioner. Neither the commissioner was examined nor was his report challenged by the appellant / complainant. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the 3rd respondent hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the motor and pump supplied were different than that of the specification in the order, no bill was given, warranty card was that of a different equipment etc. Exbt. R4 is a letter dated 8-09-09 addressed to the Secretary, Thrissur Corporation by Kini kolpadavu Padasekhara Samity. It confirms receipt of 50 HP Motor, pump and accessories and gives no objection for making payment to 2nd respondent, Raidco. It also states about the assurance given by the 2nd respondent to make it operational. Having given such a confirmation of receipt of the equipments and consent for release of payment, they cannot complain about the mismatch in the supply of motor and pump, absence of bill, warranty certificate etc and hence their contention in this regard is untenable.
10. The only issue left is to ascertain satisfactory working of the motor and pump. Exbt. C1 is the report of the expert commissioner. He inspected the motor and pump on 08.11.2014 ie, after five years of its purchase. He was able to operate it after some repairs. It is stated in the report that the motor pump set is working with normal current settings but discharge from the pump is very poor and unsatisfactory. It is further stated that the pump side suction pipe at lower end has less diameter than the pump side end. The reduction in the discharge may be due to this reason. This appears to be a minor issue and it has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the equipment. The available evidence is not sufficient to fix or pin point the responsibility for the said defect to anyone and cast liability for deficiency in service on any of the respondents.
11. The appellant/complainant is not able to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents. We do not find any merit in the appeal and find no ground to interfere with the order of the District Commission.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 18.02.2017 in C.C. No. 580/2010 of the District Commission, Thrissur is confirmed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER RANJIT. R : MEMBER BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER jb [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH] JUDICIAL MEMBER [ SRI.RANJIT.R] MEMBER [ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A] MEMBER [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R] MEMBER