Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
KOTO TRADE AND SERVICES (P) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
B.D. GUPTA - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2429 of 2013 against Order dated 22.4.2013 in First Appeal No. 181/2012 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun
Decided on : 03-02-2014
Mr. N.C. Agrawal, M.D, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikrant Gambhir, Advocate, for the Respondent
The company's obligation to honor the warranty and provide proper services to the consumer.
Headnote:
Warranty - Consumer Protection - The court upheld the decision of the State Commission, ruling that the warranty did not cease due to mishandling or shifting by an outsider mechanic, and the responsibility for damage due to substandard accessories lies with the company. The court found that the company failed to provide proper services, leading to the consumer incurring further expenses and mental agony.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a solar water heater system with a one-year warranty. The system started leaking, and despite assurances from the company, the defect was not removed. The complainant ultimately purchased a new system and filed a consumer complaint for a refund.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the decision of the State Commission. It found that the company failed to provide proper services, leading to the consumer incurring further expenses and mental agony.
Issues: The issues revolved around the warranty terms, responsibility for damage, and the company's obligation to provide proper services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the warranty did not cease due to mishandling or shifting by an outsider mechanic, and the responsibility for damage due to substandard accessories lies with the company. The company's failure to provide proper services amounted to deficiency.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member -The Complainant Mr. B.D. Gupta had purchased a solar water heater system from Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Manager, Koto Trade and Services Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun the Opposite Party No. 1. It was installed in his house on 10.2.2010 and there was a warranty of one year. He had spent Rs. 18,750 for the purchase of Solar water heater, plus Rs. 9,600 for installation, total being a sum of Rs. 28,350. However, in the month of May, 2010, the tank of the solar water heater system started leaking from various points. To repair the defect of the tank, the OP-1 sent his employee to the complainant's house, but the employee damaged the insulation of the tank, while examining it and told the Complainant that he cannot repair the tank. After this, the Complainant contacted OP No. -1 and also the Director, Koto House, the OP.-2, who always assured him that the defect will be removed and, in case the defect is not removed, they will replace the solar water heater system. The Complainant furnished a written complaint to OP-1, on 16.6.2010, but of no result. Ultimately, the Complainant purchased a new solar water heater system for Rs. 27,000 and spent an amount of Rs. 2,000 on the purchase of its parts and Rs. 1,000 on labour. Thus, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum ), Dehradun and prayed for refund.
2. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay jointly and severally the cost of Solar water heater Rs. 22,750 with 9% interest per annum and to pay Rs. 2,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as costs.
3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'state Commission'). Before the State Commission, the Director, Mr. N. C. Agrawal and authorized representative of OP, was also present.
4. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of District Forum by reducing the rate of interest to from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. and disallowed Rs. 2,000 for mental agony.
5. Against the order of State Commission, this revision petition arose.
6. We have heard both the parties. The Counsel for Petitioner/OP vehemently argued that, the warranty does not cover the breakage due to mishandling, impact or fall of any external object on the said system. Warranty also ceases if the system is shifted/handled by outsiders mechanic. The Complainant/Respondent has signed the Invoice No. LS-100/09-10 dated 19.2.2010, wherein he has also accepted the terms and conditions annexed to the said invoice. The Counsel for OP, further submitted that grounding and foundation is very important to prevent from wind pressure due to which the system may fall and get damaged. Hence, such work needs highly skilled engineers of the company. The complainant had totally ignored the advice and recommendation given by the representative of OP, thus, violated the terms and conditions of supply. Hence, the warranty was ceased. Despite the termination of warranty, on 9.6.2010, OP sent a mechanic to the complainant's house who removed/repaired the defects to entire satisfaction visited of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice to the OP on 30.6.2010 stating therein that the system had been dislocated and had fallen down from the second floor to the first floor due to storm and had been destroyed completely.
7. We have perused Clause No. (vii) and (xi) of the Terms and Conditions of supply, which state that:
"(vii) If the system is shifted/handled by outsider mechanic, the warranty will cease.
(xi) Due to any substandard accessories, used by customer, the responsibility of damage will be of customers."
8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence and documents on file. The OP has not produced any cogent evidence with regard to shifting and mishandling of the solar water heater system by the Complainant. There is no iota of ev
