State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Jai Industries, vs Ramesh T.V, Proprietor, on 9 February, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/211 (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/02/2010 in Case No. CC 245/05 of District Kannur) 1. Jai Indistries ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ramesh.T.V ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.211/10
JUDGMENT DATED 9.2.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
1. M/s.Jai Industries,
Near Soni's Chawl,
Old Odnav Tolnaka, -- APPELLANTS
Rakhial Odnav Main Road,
Rakhial, Ahmedabad, reptd by its
Managing Partner Nirav Shah.
2. M/S.Quality Machine & Spares
39/1385, 4 star Building,
Chittoor Road, Valanjambalam,]
Ernakulam - 16.
Reptd. By its Managing Partner
P.K.Pradeep.
(By Adv.T.J.Lakshmanan)
Vs.
1. Ramesh T.V, Proprietor,
M/s.Vijay Furnituyre,
Ambalappuram P.O, Cherukunnu,
Kannur District.
2. M/s.Prompt Machines & Tools -- RESPONDENTS
Opposite Chamber of Commerce
Cannanore - 670 002.
(R1 By Adv.G.Sreekumaran)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 2 and 3 in CC.245/05 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants and the first opposite party are under orders to pay Rs.2,13,600/- to the complainant at 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint and also Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Jai brand Auto Spiral Lathe Machine for a sum of Rs.2,13,600/-. The first opposite party is the dealer and the second opposite party is the manufacturer. The machine purchased was an automatic Lathe Machine The cost of an ordinary machine was Rs.1,00,000/-. The machine was to be used for the workshop. The machine was purchased availing loan from Cathelic Syrian Bank. It is the contention that after a few days, the machine became defective. In the mechanic of the first opposite party visited the premises and removed the automatic parts thereof. Thereafter, the machine is working as a mechanical one. Lawyer notice was sent. Contention in the reply notice is untenable.
3. It is only the first opposite party who contested the matter; the second opposite was ex-parte. The third opposite party/dealer filed version. But, there after remained absent.
4. The first opposite party has disputed the allegations raised in the complaint. It is pointed out that on 16.7.05, the mechanic of the manufacturer from Aheammadabad came to the complainant's place and rectified the defects.
5. The third opposite party had also filed version and contending that the electronic relays got damaged due to careless handling and inconsistent and recurring voltage fluctuations. It is stated that the opposite party replaced the control panel and push button with mechanical switches. The machines are still working.
6. The evidence adduced consisted of testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B7.
7. The commissioner who submitted Ext.C1 commission report has pointed out the defects in the machine ie; the chuck in the lathe machine is imperfect, the chuck is having vibration and face out problems during operation and the panel board of the automatic system is not working. The reasons for the defects are also mentioned. The imperfection of the chuck is due to manufacturing defects. It is mentioned the defects with the chuck are manufacturing defect. The fault of the panel board is due to electronic complaints. The commission has also mentioned that the panel board of the automatic system is not working.
8. We find that it is not disputed that the machine is still working but without automatic system. The case of the complainant is that the ordinary machine would cost only Rs.1,00,000/- is not disputed in the version of the opposite parties or in the evidence of RW1. In the circumstances, we find that it was not proper on the part of the Forum to refund the entire purchase amount of Rs.2,13,600/-. Evidently, so far the complainant is using the machine without automatic function. Hence, we find it would be proper to direct the opposite parties to pay the purchase price less the price of the automatic functions. The same would work out Rs.1,13,600/-. The direction to pay compensation is also not required as interest has been awarded.
9. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part as follows. The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.1,13,600/- with interest at 12% from 1.10.05 the date of complaint till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay cost of Rs.7,500/-. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 15% from 9.2.11 the date of this order.
The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER [HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT