SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Smt. Suprabha has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Sri. Ajayakhosh, Proprietor, Signet Electronics. The brief facts of the contentions are as follows: - the complainant had purchased an inverter for a sum of 13,175/- from the opposite party on 25-07-2007. But on 29-07-2007 it became defective. Immediately the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party through phone. Since there was no response, she went to the shop of the opposite party and explained the details. At that time, also she had not obtained a positive step from the opposite party. After one month, the opposite party had taken the set from the complainant for rectification. So far, the complainant had not get back the set from the opposite party after curing the defect. Hence the complaint for relief. 2. Notice was sent to the opposite party. He has entered appearance and filed version. In the version, the opposite party has admitted the purchase of the set by the complainant. It is stated that, as per the request of the complainant, the opposite party had inspected the wiring system in the residence of the complainant and found that the set became drop due to the overload of the electricity. After that, the opposite party had reset the equipment after disconnecting the load and instructed the complainant about that. It was found that the set was shown any manufacturing defect and the defect shown was due to the defect in electric wiring system in the residential building of the complainant. It is further stated that since the set has any defects, the opposite party has requested the complainant to entrust the set with him to ascertain the defects, if any. But the complainant has not turned up so far. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Considering the contentions of the opposite party, this Forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Compensation and costs. 4. Issues 1 and 2: - On the side of the complainant, she has filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents Exts. A1 and A2 in evidence marked. Ext. A1 is the Bill dated 25-07-2007 for a sum of Rs. 13,175/- towards the price of the set. Ext. A2 is the Warranty Card dated 25-07-2007. It shows that the warranty is in effect for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The set became defective on 29-07-2007 and it is within the period of warranty. In the proof affidavit, the complainant has stated that after the purchase of the set from the opposite party it became defective within days. In this concept, the contentions of the complainant are genuine and the opposite party is bound to replace the set, since the original set is defective. Hence, we are of the strong view that the complainant has a prima facie case against the opposite party. The contentions raised by the opposite party cannot be accepted as a valid ground for denial of the allegation put forward by the complainant. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. 5. In the result, considering the whole aspects of this case, we hereby direct the opposite party to give a new set of inverter having the same price and same specification like the earlier set, to the complainant, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. No orders as to compensation and costs. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008 Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainant: - PW1 - J. Suprabha Ext. A1 25-07-2007 Original Cash receipt Ext. A2 25-07-2007 Warranty Card Evidence of the Opposite party: - Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite party/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:
