Judgment:
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.20/2008 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.85000/- with interest at 9%.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a power tiller from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.96950/-. The machine was having warranty of 2 years. The attachments such as light unit, leveler, flot, furrow, self starting system etc were not provided. Although it was assured that the service will be provided at the site the same was provided only once. After one month the tiller developed problems regarding self starting system. The tile wheel shaft broke during the operation. There was gear box oil leak, diesel pipe leak, excessive oil consumption, diesel tank leak etc. The above was on account of the poor materials used for manufacturing the components. The complainant had to spent money for repairs. The defects still persists. The complainant is not in a position to use the same for agricultural purposes due to intermittent breakage of tiller wheel shaft. It is alleged that the tiller is a substandard one. He has sought for refund of the money and compensation of Rs.10000/-
3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that there is no warranty as alleged. It is alleged that the defects if any was communicated to the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant got the tiller repaired by outside mechanics which resulted in the defects persisting. The tiller supplied was imported from China and that it is not having any manufacturing defects, it is contented.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, OPWs 1 and 2; Exts.A1 to A6, C1, B1 and B2.
5. The Forum has found fault with the opposite parties for not providing warranty which is nothing less than unfair trade practice. The Forum has relied on the report of the Commissioner and allowed the complaint after deducting depreciation of 10%.
6. We find that the complaint has been filed on 8.2.08 and the date of purchase mentioned is May 2006. The complaint has been filed after about 1 year and 6 months. The commission inspected the machine on 8.6.10 it is after 2 years of filing the complaint. The manufacturing defects noted by the Commissioner are: 1).tile wheel assembly is broken and welded 2) steering shaft joint worn out. The other defects mentioned are due to lack of maintenance and service ie the vehicle is not in a running condition; head light broken and not working; oil leakage through housing packing, side clutch cable is not working and left hand side tyre seen punctured.
7. PW1 has testified in terms of the averments in the complaint. OPW1 is the Branch Manager of the opposite party. He was stated that it was told at the time of sale itself that it was not to be possible to provide any warranty as the machine is manufactured in China. He has reiterated the allegation that it was only due to the repairs done outside that the defects persisted. OPW2 has stated that he is the authorized mechanic. According to him he has examined the vehicle and at the time there was no manufacturing defect ie at the time of sale. According to him the defects mentioned in Ext.C1 report may be on account of the fact that the vehicle hit somewhere. According to him he was not informed with respect to the defects.
8. We find that the attitude of the opposite party in not providing warranty and after sale service and facility for repairs can not be approved. Without the equipments for replacing the spares and effecting repairs the machine ought not have been sold. As stated by the complainant repairs should have been effected at the site as the machine cannot be run much of a distance through the road. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainant that the opposite parties did not provide after sale service or facility for repairs.
9. In the circumstances we find that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. All the same as noted above the complaint has been filed after about 1 ½ years after purchase and the machine is still with the complainant. In the circumstances we find that the order to pay 85000/- is liable to be modified. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.65000/- in view of the above circumstances after deducting Rs.5000/- already deposited. The balance to be paid is Rs.60000/-. The complainant will also be entitled for interest as ordered by the Forum ie 9% per annum from the date of complaint. The complainant/respondent will also be entitled for cost of Rs.7500/-. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.
10.Opposite parties will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 28.2.12 the date of this order.
Office will forward the LCR alongwith the copy of this order to the Forum.