State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 13, ... vs Sri Udayahari Das, Son Of Late Krushna ... on 17 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.374 OF 1996 From the common judgment and order dated 25.05.1996 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balasore in C.D. Case Nos.285, 286 and 293 of 1993. ---------- 1. M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 13, Laxman Rao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune, represented through ts Area Manager Sri V.N. Naik 2. M/s Shree Mahabir Service Station, Katchery Road, Balasore, represented through its partner Sri Dwarka Prasad More Appellants -Versus- 1. Sri Udayahari Das, son of late Krushna Mohan Das, Vill/P.O. Mahagab, P.S. Bhograi, Dist. Balasore 2. Sri Ramhari Dey, son of late Narendra Nath Dey, Vill/P.O. Mahagab, P.S. Bhograi, Dist. Balasore 3. Sri Madhusudan Gharai, son of late Kesab Ch. Gharai, Vill/P.O. Chandakusumi, P.S. Bhograi, Dist. Balasore 4. Secretary, Mohagab Service Cooperative Bank, Bhograi Branch, Dist. Balasore 5. Branch Manager, Balasore District Central Co-operative Bank, Bhograi Branch, Dist. Balasore Respondents For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Samal For the Respondents : N o n e P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT, AND SHRIMATI SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:-
The 17 September, 2010.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
By means of this C.D. Appeal, the appellants Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd., the manufacturer of Kirloskar water pump sets, and M/s Shree Mahabir Service Station, the distributor of Kirloskar pumps at Balasore have assailed the common judgment and order dated 22.05.1996 passed by the District Forum, Balasore in C.D. Case Nos.285, 286 and 293 of 1993. The aforementioned C.D. Cases were filed by the complainants-respondents Udayahari Das, Ramahari Dey and Madhusudan Gharai respectively alleging deficiency in service on the part of both the manufacturer and the local distributor of Kirloskar pumps.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainants are that the complainants are the beneficiaries of Balasore District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. as well as Mohagab Service Co-operative Society, Mohagab in the district of Balasore. For cultivation of their land, they had applied for purchasing water pump sets. They being I.R.E.P. beneficiaries, their applications were recommended by the Project Officer, D.R.D.A., Balasore. As per the orders given by the Secretary of the Service Co-operative Society, opposite party no.1, the dealer of Kirloskar water pump sets, supplied three Kirloskar diesel pump sets to the complainants on 23.01.1993 on receiving Rs.13,400/- from the Branch Manager, Balasore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhograi Branch as they were the beneficiaries under the said Bank. No warranty card was supplied to the complainants for the diesel pump sets provided to them. Opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of those Kirloskar diesel pump sets having their factory at Pune in the State of Maharashtra. After purchase of the pump sets, the complainants used them for a period of about three months, whereafter the pump sets started giving trouble. They approached opposite party no.1, the local dealer, on 10.04.1993 and informed him about the trouble in the pump sets. At the first instance, opposite party no.1 exhibited his reluctance to send his mechanic to repair those pump sets. Ultimately, he sent one mechanic, namely, Manoj Kumar Patra, who came and opened those pump sets for repair and declared that the original crank shaft, the piston of the engine, the connecting rod and the mobil pump fitted to those pump sets were not of Kirloskar make as there were no mark of Kirloskar over those parts. All those parts were of some different company. After knowing this from the mechanic, the complainants informed the matter to opposite party no.1, i.e., the local dealer, who refused to replace those parts. According to the complainants, opposite party no.1 being the authorized dealer of opposite party no.2, i.e., the manufacturer, had deliberately fitted defective parts in the diesel pump sets sold to them and those parts were inferior in quality and nature. Despite several requests were made by the complainants, when opposite party no.1 failed to replace those parts and also failed to repair the pump sets, the complainants filed three complaints separately against the opposite parties alleging adoption of unfair trade practice by them. The complainants further alleged that the price of the pump sets supplied to them by opposite party no.1 was Rs.2,000/- more than the price of such pump sets sold in the district of Midnapore at that point of time and as such opposite party no.1 had taken Rs.2,000/- more than the market price of the diesel pump sets from each of the complainants. With these allegations, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and adoption of unfair trade practice by them, the complainants filed the complaints claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- each since they had sustained loss due to non-functioning of those pump sets resulting in failure of crop.
3. The opposite parties, after receipt of notice from the Forum, filed written version in each of the disputes and challenged the maintainability of the complaints. According to opposite party no.1, the complaints are not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., the Area Manager of M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Bhubaneswar, the Balasore Central Co-operative Bank, Bhograi Branch and the Secretary, Mohagab Service Co-operative Society, Mohagab as well as M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Pune. It was, inter alia, pleaded by opposite party no.1 that he had sold the Kirloskar pump sets to each of the complainants on receipt of Rs.13,400/- per pump set from the Bhograi Branch of the Balasore Central Co-operative Bank, under which the complainants were the beneficiaries. That price was the prevailing rate of Kirloskar diesel pump sets during the relevant time, i.e., 23.01.1993. He had supplied one maintenance chart, which contained the warranty card, along with each pump set. It is stated in the written version that on 10.04.1993, the complainants had not approached opposite party no.1, nor had they complained before him regarding the defects in the pump sets, but on the verbal request of the Secretary, Mohagab Service Co-operative Society, he had deputed the service mechanic Manoj Kumar Patra to remove the defects in the pump sets at the complainants place. Accordingly, the said mechanic attended and opened the pump sets at the site. On the insistence of the complainants, he gave memos mentioning description of four numbers of different parts. On the very same day, the mechanic removed the defects in the pump sets and each of the complainants had given satisfaction note pertaining to repair of the pump sets and removal of the defects. On the report of the mechanic regarding the parts, opposite party no.1 intimated the Area Manager of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Bhubaneswar about fitting of four spare parts in each of the pump sets with Kirloskar mark thereon. The Area Manager along with the service mechanic visited the spot, inspected the pump sets and held discussion with the Secretary of the Service Co-operative Society as well as the complainants. The Area Manager extended the warranty period for further six months. It was also intimated to the Secretary of the Service Co-operative Society that the pump sets supplied to the beneficiaries were genuine Kirloskar pump sets and opposite party no.1 was their authorized dealer. It is the case of opposite party no.1 that whenever there had been any defect, the mechanic was sent who visited the site and conducted necessary repairs and obtained satisfaction note from the complainants, and this fact was being intimated to the Secretary of the Service Co-operative Society. As such, there is no deficiency in service. The parts used in the pump sets are genuine parts. Though actually they were not manufactured by the Kirloskar company, they were manufactured by other companies under the supervision and quality specification of the Kirloskar company.
4. After opposite party no.1 filed its written version, M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., Pune was impleaded as opposite party no.2 by the District Forum on the petition of the complainants. The said opposite party appeared and filed written version reiterating the stand taken by opposite party no.1 regarding the manufacturing of the parts by different suppliers strictly as per the design of M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. and as per their standard and specification under the supervision of their service technicians, who camped at those factories and inspected the quality thoroughly before they were taken for assembly. As such it cannot be said that there is any degradation of quality.
5. The District Forum, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, held opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.7,000/- to each of the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of the order. They were directed to send their mechanic to each of the complainants within 15 days of receipt of the order to collect the Kirloskar pump sets from them under proper receipt and to get them thoroughly repaired and checked at their cost and hand over them to the complainants at their residence and to ensure that the pump sets are functioning properly. Apart from that, the District Forum also directed that this service shall be completed within two weeks from the date the pump sets are taken from the complainants. Any departure in the time schedule would entail payment of Rs.50/- per day to each of the complainants. The District Forum also awarded Rs.500/- towards cost to each of the complainants.
6. We have heard Mr. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. We have thoroughly gone through the impugned judgment and elaborately heard the learned counsel for the appellants. On the face of satisfaction note submitted by the complainants after the mechanic Manoj Kumar Patra repaired the pump sets, there remained nothing more to be done by the appellants-opposite parties. They have also extended the warranty period to ensure further free repair of the pump sets in case of contingency. As regards the defective parts, it has been well explained by opposite party no.2 and their Area Manager that Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. does not manufacture all the components of the engine and different suppliers supply the same, which are manufactured in their respective factories under the strict supervision of the technicians of the Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.
This sufficiently explains about the quality of the parts which, as found by the mechanic on opening of the pump sets, did not bear the emblem of Kirloskar. However, those parts were replaced by new ones free of cost under warranty. Without any independent expert opinion, the District Forum is not competent enough to hold that the pump sets supplied to the complainants were of inferior quality, for which they did not function properly.
7. As regards the allegation of extra price of Rs.2,000/- taken by opposite party no.1 per each pump set, it is the case of the opposite parties supported by documents that the Project Officer, D.R.D.A. had quoted the price of the pump sets at which opposite party no.1 had sold the same to the complainants under the finance advanced by the Service Co-operative Society.
8. In view of the factual position as narrated above and after perusal of the L.C.R. and scrutiny of the documents filed by the opposite parties, we find the impugned judgment and order to be thoroughly indefensible. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 22.05.1996 passed by the District Forum, Balasore in C.D. Case Nos. 285, 286 and 293 of 1993 and direct dismissal of the said consumer complaints.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President .......
(Smarita Mohanty) Member SCDRC, ORISSA, CUTTACK September ,2010/Nayak