State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vinayaka Agencies . vs N Shivanna on 4 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1197/2023 ( Date of Filing : 05 Jul 2023 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 23/08/2021 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/169/2018 of District Bangalore 4th Additional) 1. VINAYAKA AGENCIES . NO.28/1, S P ROAD BENGALURU-560 002..,BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. N SHIVANNA S/O.LATE LINGE GOWDA ALIAS GUDIGOWDA.,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS., MANDYA KARNATAKA 2. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA S/O.LATE LINGE GOWDA ALIAS GUDIGOWDA.,AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.,BOTH ARE RESIDING AT .,CHANDAGALA VILLEGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK,MANDYA,KARNATAKA MANDYA KARNATAKA 3. TEXMO INDUSTRIES P.O BOX NO.5303, METTUPALYAM ROAD COIMBATORE,COIMBATORE -641 029.TAMIL NADU COIMBATORE TAMIL NADU ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 04 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:05.07.2023 Date of Disposal:04.08.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 04th Day of August 2023 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.1197/2023 O R D E R
BY HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT This Appeal filed by OP1 under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by an order dated 23.08.2021, passed in CC/169/2018 by IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (herein after referred as District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint) Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsel for appellant. Accordingly, found satisfied to dispense with issuance of notice to be served on respondents to avoid further delay.
It is undisputed fact that respondent no.1 and 2/ are the children of Late Lingegowda and they are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.61/1, 61/2A, 61/2B, 62/2C, 61/2D, 61/3, 61/4, 61/5, 62/7, 13/1, 13/5, 17/1, 25/24, 1/31A1, 52/2, 52/3 and 53/5 measuring 0.28 Acres, 0.17 Acres, 0.17 Acres, 0.08 Acres, 0.08 Acres, 1.07 Acres, 0.39 Acres, 0.24 Acres, 0.85 Acres, 0.21 Acres, 0.19 Acres, 0.20 Acres, 0.80 Acres, 0.08 Acres, 0.14 Acres, 0.05 Acres and 0.11 Acres respectively situated at Chandagala Village, Basaraly Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District. It is also not in dispute that Borewell was dug in the land bearing Sy.No.1/13A1 on 24.03.2017 and respondent no.1/complainant no.1 had purchased TEXMO 10 HP, 20 stage, 3 PH motor of submersible pump, a starter and a cable 4SQMM with ISI 320 meters on 27.03.2017 for Rs.81,648/- from OP1/appellant. The only dispute is related to the non-delivery of the motor in defect after rectification or supplying of the new motor inspite of repeated request by complainants/respondent no.1 and 2, due to which complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 had sustained loss by decrease in the yield for non supply of water for the standing sugarcane crop. Admittedly, OP1/appellant had received the defective motor pump set from complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 on 01.04.2017 and had given to authorized service centre N.M.V Engineering Works, Bengaluru of OP2 on 12.04.2017. The said motor pump set was repaired and was sent to OP1/appellant on 13.04.2017. Learned counsel for appellant/OP1 submits that complainants/ respondent no.1 and 2 had sent legal notice on 04.05.2017 demanding to provide new pump set or refund the money and appellant/OP1 had replied to the said legal notice on 15.05.2017 stating that motor pump set is ready and complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 had not come to collect the said pump set from OP1/appellant, was not considered by the Commission below. Further submits that motor coil winding was burnt due to improper installation, low voltage, no proper 03 phase power supply and single phase running in the motor. It is to be noted herein that Commission below hold that the averments of the OP1 that the communication of OP1 on telephone cannot be accepted since he has not produced any evidence to prove his bonafide. But fact remained that OP1 in his reply to legal notice dated 15.05.2017 states that he had intimated respondent no.1 and 2/complainants that motor pump set is ready and complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 had not come to collect the said pump set from OP1/appellant. The complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 filed consumer complaint before the Commission on 30.01.2018. The Commission below before coming to the conclusion that OP1/appellant had not informed about the repair of the said motor to the complainants/respondent no.1 and 2, could have asked complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 as to why did complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 did not collect the said repaired motor pump set to get re-installed in their borewell after knowing the fact of repair of the said motor pump by reply notice sent by OP1/appellant dated 15.05.2017 since complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 had filed consumer complaint at the end of January 2018 i.e., after 07 months from the receipt of reply to legal notice. It is pertinent to note here that Commission below could have examined the cause of shortage of water supply to the land of the complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 since the Commission below had only considered Ex.A9 Copy of report of estimated loss issued by the agricultural officer dated 19.04.2017 and since the complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 alleged that from 29.03.2017 till the date of issuance of legal notice dated 04.05.2017 had sustained decrease in yield for shortage of water supply due to the act of OP1/appellant. Further learned counsel for appellant/OP1 submits that Ex.A13 and 14 Copy of Ryot Cane Supply bill for the year 2016-17 issued by NSL Sugars Ltd., in favour of the complainants are the bills pertaining for the period from 12.09.2016 to 18.09.2016, 26.09.2016 to 02.10.2016, 26.09.2016 to 02.10.2016 and 26.09.2016 to 02.10.2016 are not relevant to the complaint filed by complainants, has some considerable force, since as stated supra complainants/respondent no.1 and 2 alleged that from 29.03.2017 till the date of issuance of legal notice dated 04.05.2017 had sustained decrease in yield for shortage of water supply due to the act of OP1/appellant.
In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that matter requires reconsideration by the Commission below. Accordingly, Commission proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2021 passed in CC/169/2018 by IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and remand back the matter to Commission to decide the afresh affording opportunity to both parties and decide case as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady MemberJudicial MemberPresident *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER