Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President;
Mr. K. Balakrishnan & Prof. K. Madhuri Latha, Members
PADMA AUTO ELECTRICALS—Appellant
versus
T.P. SUBRAMONIAN —Respondent
Appeal No. 626 of 1995 — Decided on 14.2.1996
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. M. Gopinathan Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
A CONSUMER IS ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID, COMPENSATION FOR THE DEFECTIVE GOODS, AND REPAIR CHARGES, IF THE GOODS SUPPLIED ARE FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE OR FAKE.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFECTIVE GOODS - SUPPLY OF FAKE CYLINDER BLOCK AND PISTON ASSEMBLY - COMPENSATION AND REFUND - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(1)(g) AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE CASE - COURT HELD THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID ALONG WITH INTEREST AND COMPENSATION FOR THE DEFECTIVE GOODS.
Fact of the Case:
THE COMPLAINANT PURCHASED A CYLINDER BLOCK AND PISTON ASSEMBLY FROM THE OPPOSITE PARTY FOR THE REPAIR OF HIS AUTORIKSHA. THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT THE CYLINDER BLOCK SUPPLIED WAS DEFECTIVE AND FAKE, AND THAT THE PISTON ASSEMBLY ALSO BECAME DEFECTIVE WITHIN A WEEK. THE COMPLAINANT FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM SEEKING REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID, COMPENSATION FOR THE DEFECTIVE GOODS, AND REPAIR CHARGES.
Finding of the Court:
THE DISTRICT FORUM FOUND THAT THE CYLINDER BLOCK SUPPLIED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS DEFECTIVE AND FAKE, AND THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID ALONG WITH INTEREST, COMPENSATION FOR THE DEFECTIVE GOODS, AND REPAIR CHARGES. THE DISTRICT FORUM AWARDED THE COMPLAINANT RS. 2,500/- AS COMPENSATION AND RS. 750/- AS COSTS.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE CYLINDER BLOCK SUPPLIED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS DEFECTIVE AND FAKE. 2. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID, COMPENSATION FOR THE DEFECTIVE GOODS, AND REPAIR CHARGES.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD PROVED THAT THE CYLINDER BLOCK SUPPLIED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY WAS DEFECTIVE AND FAKE. THE COURT RELIED ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES, AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID, COMPENSATION FOR THE DEFECTIVE GOODS, AND REPAIR CHARGES, AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(1)(g) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Final Decision: THE COURT MODIFIED THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT FORUM AND AWARDED THE COMPLAINANT RS. 840/- AS REFUND OF THE PRICE PAID, ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% FROM 28.7.1992. THE COURT ALSO AWARDED THE COMPLAINANT RS. 850/- TOWARDS REPAIR CHARGES AND COMPENSATION, AND RS. 350/- TOWARDS COSTS.
Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President — This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kozhikode in OP No. 813/ 92. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. Though notice was issued to respondent and it was served on him, there is no appearance. We heard the Counsel for the appellant and also perused the documents and records.
3. The case of the complainant is that on 28.2.1992 in connection with the repair of his autoriksha, the complainant asked the opposite party for an API Cylinder Block and an IPL Piston Assembly, and the opposite party supplied a Cylinder Block and an IPL Piston for consideration of Rs. 840/-. What was demanded was API Cylinder Block but what was supplied to him was a false one. The price collected was also excess. Further within a week the piston became defective. The matter was reported to the opposite party by a registered letter but nothing was done by the opposite party. It is on these allegations the complaint was filed.
4. The opposite party filed a version stating that what he had supplied was Daya Cylinder and IPL Piston. He denied that the complainant demanded API Cylinder. There was no guarantee. He also did not overcharge as contended by the complainant. The complainant examined himself as CW 1 and another mechanic was also examined a CW 2 in support of the case of the complainant. Exbts. Al to A6 were also marked. As against this, the opposite party was examined as OPW 1 and Exbts. B1 series and B2 were produced.
5. Exbt. Al is the cash bill issued to the complainant by the opposite party. It revealed the items purchased by the complainant included a cylinder block priced at Rs. 600/- and an IPL Piston assembly priced at Rs. 240/-. They were produced before the District Forum as material objects and marked MO. 1 series. Complainant gave evidence that what was asked by him was API Cylinder Block and IPL Piston assembly. This evidence was corroborated by CW 2 the mechanic of the workshop who accompanied him. Letters API are seen inscribed on the cylinder block which was produced before the District Forum. The complainant's case is instead of API Cylinder a fake one was supplied to him. CW 2 who is an experienced mechanic deposed that M.O.1 Cylinder is a fake one. It is further stated when the opposite party was informed about this, opposite party sent Exbt. A 3 reply stating that the cylinder was manufactured by one Daya Auto Industries of New Delhi. The complainant deposed that he tried to contact them by sending a registered letter on the address furnished by the opposite party, but the envelope containing the letter was returned undelivered with the postal endorsement no such firm. Exbt. A 4 is the envelope returned. The opposite party appears to have admitted in his cross-examination that the firm was not in existence. In the cross-examination OPW 1 stated that the cylinder supplied by him carried guarantee. On further cross examination about his statement in the reply Exbt. A 3 that there was no guarantee he replied that he cannot say anything about that. He also admitted in the cross-examination that there is inscription IPL in the cylinder. He further stated he does not remember the address of the Auto Industries and he had realised that the firm was not in existence in that address. CW 2 also stated that the Cylinder was defective and because of defect of cylinder, piston also became defective. It is on the basis of these materials the District Forum came to the conclusion that the cylinder supplied was defective and passed an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,500/- with interest and cost of Rs. 750/-.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raised two main contentions. The complainant in his notice stated that he realised the cylinder was defective when a qualified engineer told him that the cylinder was defective but that engineer was not examined in the case and that
