Dated this the 30^th  day of August  2013

 

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

Manikandan,

W/o.Velayudhan Ezhuthassan,

Mecheri Hardware,

Vallanghy, Nemmara (PO),

Palakkad                                                      -        Complainant

(By Adv.Joy Kanhirathinchalil)

V/s

 

1.Amart Technologies,

(By Party in person)

 

2.Amart

 

3.Stanqueen, Exide Industries Ltd.,

(By Adv.N.Anoopkumar)                                          -   Opposite parties

 

          By Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. MEMBER

 

Brief facts of the case.

 

The complainant has purchased an inverter for using  in his shop. The shop was started as a self employment for his livelihood. The inverter was purchased on 27/4/11 being model No.AT2000VA by paying Rs.33,000/-. After two weeks the inverter was not working properly. The complainant informed the matter to the 1^st opposite party and the technician sent by the 1^st opposite party repaired the inverter. Even after repairing, the inverter did not work properly. Within a few weeks the inverter began to be seen not supplying sufficient power. Thereafter the technician of the 1^st opposite party came and repaired the inverter for four times. Finally on 21/7/12 the inverter was seen not working. Inspite of the repeated repair the inverter remained   in not working. The technician of the 1^st opposite party examined the inverter and found that the inverter has serious manufacturing defects and can’t be repaired. The inverter sold to the complainant was a defective one and it can’t be used at all. 1^st opposite party is not ready to replace the inverter with a new one. The complainant demanded to refund the price of the inverter. But the opposite parties are evading the complainant’s demand.

 

The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. So the complainant praying an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards the price of the inverter and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with the cost of the proceedings.

 

1^st and 3^rd opposite party entered appearance and filed version. 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

1^st opposite party admits that the complainant has purchased an inverter on 27/4/11 bearing model No.AT2000SW and batch No.M311. But the serial number mentioned in the warranty card and the inverter presently available with him will not match. When the complainant raised a complaint to the company 1^st opposite party has replaced the inverter with a new one. 1^st opposite party also says that they have no technicians for repairing the inverter and as per the terms of the warranty they have replaced the inverter. 1^st opposite party has received complaints for three times from the complainant. According to 1^st opposite party the load connected to the inverter is more than its capacity. This complainant everyday switch off the main while closing the shop and the inverter battery connected to the main will automatically take the control of the power failure and starts functioning and if no load is connected to the inverter it takes a current from the battery for the working of the transformer inside. Thus there is a power loss of battery every day. As per the terms of the battery it can’t be serviced by the dealer and to be sent to the company. The complainant never allowed the 1^st opposite party to take the battery from the shop. The inverter supplied to the complainant is a good one. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3^rd opposite party contents that they are the manufacturing of various battery in India. The defect alleged by the complainant is for the inverter. 3^rd opposite party has not received any complaint regarding the battery and no one has reported this matter to the 3^rd opposite party.

There is no deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party and they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

Complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext.A1 to A7 marked. Commission report was marked as Ext.C1 & C2. Opposite parties not filed any chief affidavit.

Heard.

 

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

 

We heard the parties and gone through the document on record. In Ext.A1 dated 27/4/11 the Order Form and Ext.A2 the Service Report, it is seen that the model of the inverter is of AT2000SW. In Ext.A3 the date is same as in Ext.A1 and the model shown as AT.2000VA. So that in the complaint, complainant has mentioned the model of the inverter as in the Ext.A3. Any how the commissioner in his report Ext.C1, it is mentioned the model No. of the inverter he had examined is model AT2000SW. So that the inverter in the  possession of the complainant at present is supplied by the 1^st opposite party. It also shows that the opposite party has replaced the inverter. The grievance of the complainant that even after the repeated repairing the inverter remain defective . To prove the defects of the inverter a commissioner was appointed and Ext.C1 and C2 reports marked. The Commissioner inspected the inverter twice and the remuneration for the same was shared by both the parties.  In Ext.C2 report commissioner stated that inverter sâ Out put ]qÀ®ambpw CÃmsXbmWv I­Xv.    At the  time of the first visit of the commissioner the warranty seal was removed and checked the inverter. Eventhough a charged battery is connected, the inverter is not working. According to the commissioner the circuit board of the inverter is defective. It is a manufacturing defect. 1^st opposite party has a contention that the load connected to the inverter is more than its capacity. But the commissioner stated that the capacity of the inverter is 2000 watts and the load connected to the inverter is of 1450 watts. The commissioner also reports that the inverter kept in the shop in a proper way. For examining, the inverter was removed from the place where it was kept. Commissioner noted some defects in the battery also. Commissioner noted that “_mÁdn¡v icnbmb _m¡v A¸v Dt­m F¶v t\m¡nbt¸mÄ CÃm¯Xmbn I­p. _mÁdn periodic maintenance sNbvXn«pÅXmbpw water level, acid strength level F¶nh IrXyambn DÅXmbpw I­p.”

 

From the above discussions we are of the view that there are several defects in the inverter. 

In the result  complaint allowed.

 

Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the inverter with a new one or pay an amount of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  

 

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.  Opposite parties are at liberty to get back the old inverter on complying the order. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of August 2013.

Seena H

President

Preetha G Nair

Member

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

 

Ext.A1 –Order Form issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant dated

Ext.A2 – Service report issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.A3 – Warranty book issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A4 – Warranty card of Stanqueen issued by the 1^st opposite to the

Ext.A5 –  Warranty card of Stanqueen issued by the 1^st opposite to the

Ext.A6 – Copy of Lawyer notice issued 1^st opposite party to 2^nd opposite party  

Ext.A7 – Postal acknowledgement card for receipt of notice by 1st opposite

Nil

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.

C1-     M. Saidumohammed (Electrician).

C2-     M. Saidumohammed (Electrician).