BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 26th day of November, 2009 CORAM: 1. Sri.Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B., President, 2. Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, B.Sc., B.L., Member 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member C.C. No.37/2009 Between: P.Krishna, s/o.P.C.Narasimha Rao, age; 67 years, occu:Retd. District Vocational Education Officer, H.No.5-1-191, Adj. R & B officer, Khammam Town and District. …Complainant and Allwin Agencies, Authorised Franchise for Khammam District, Eurekha Forbes Limited, H.No.9-11-144, Ramalayam street, Khammam town and District. …Opposite party This C.C. came before us for hearing; the complainant appeared in person; notice of opposite party served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) 1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that; The complainant purchased Acqua Guard RO piece for an amount of Rs.14,500/- vide voucher No.0119 from the opposite party on 22-4-2008 and on 3-5-2008 the unit was installed by the technician of the opposite party and given the warranty of two years and after some period the Acqua Guard piece started giving troubles and informed the same to the opposite party, the technician of opposite party attended the repairs and replaced two parts by collecting Rs.450/-, even though the said piece was within the warranty and again the mission started giving troubles and causing water scarcity to the complainant. As such the complainant made many calls to the opposite party, but they failed to rectify the defects, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience. As such the complainant approached the forum with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards damages apart from the entitlement to receive the brand new piece of the same quality. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed some original documents. i) User Manual, ii) Warranty card iii) Purchase agreement in the name of the complainant iv) Cash voucher for Rs.14,500/- dt.22-4-2008 After registering the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party, but it was unserved as the opposite party was not available and the employees of opposite party refused to receive the same, and after giving sufficient time to the both parties the matter is posted for orders. In view of the above circumstances, the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for? Point: As seen from the averments of the complaint, the complainant purchased Acqua Guard RO water purifier by paying an amount of Rs.14,500/- vide voucher No.0119 on 22-4-2008 through one Mr.K.Vasanth Kumar, the employee of the opposite party with warranty of two years and after receipt of total consideration the Acqua Guard piece was installed by the technician of the opposite party and later on i.e. within the period of warranty, the machine was started giving troubles and it was repaired by the technician by replacing the two parts and collected an amount of Rs.450/- and again the machine started giving troubles and caused inconvenience to the complainant. As such the complainant requested the opposite party to repair the machine, but the opposite party did not respond to attend the repairs. As such the complainant knocked the doors of the consumer forum. In support of his averments, the complainant filed user manual, warranty card, and purchase agreement, as per the said documents the opposite party is liable to rectify the defects as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. As such it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to rectify the defects, if any, within the period of warranty and the allegation with regard to the collection of Rs.450/- for replacing the defective parts at the time of repairs at first instance is concerned, there is no documentary proof with regard to the collection of said charges and the complainant has failed to specify, which parts were replaced by the technician by collecting Rs.450/-. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and apart from the terms and conditions, we cannot fasten any liability on the opposite party and at the same time we feel that the opposite party is liable to rectify the defects if any as per the terms and conditions and bear some costs towards litigation charges. As such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to rectify the defects if any as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs of the litigation. Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 26th day of November, 2009. President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE -nil- President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam | 
