CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Bindhu Thomas, Member
CC No.94/11
Monday the 29th day of August, 2011
Petitioner : M.T.Thomas,
Meempanal House,
Poovarany PO, Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite parties : Benny Joseph,
Maria Fancy Shop,
Paika, Poovarany PO.
2) M /s.IBELL service
(Adv. K.R. Rajesh)
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant presented on 18/4/2010 is as follows.
He had purchased a multimedia speaker system worth Rs.3300/- and D.V.D player worth Rs.1600/-. From the 1st opposite party on 1/12011 which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase the opposite party assured that any complaint arises within one year they will replace the product. The DVD and speaker system was used by the complainant at least 3 month from the date of purchase. The complaint was intimated the opposite party and customer care. But the customer care people told that the board was burned and the complaint should spend Rs.1500/- for rectify the defects. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite party. The 1st opposite party appeared and filed their version contenting as follows. The complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 1st opposite party was not issued any additional warranty. The warranty card was issued by the manufacturer of the product. The 1st opposite party was not done any deficiency in service on their part. There was no connection with the after sales service of the 2nd opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complaint is that the opposite party was not rectifying the defects of the DVD and speaker system. According to him the defect was noticed after 3 months from the date of purchase. The 1st opposite party the dealer taken a contention that the warranty was provided by manufacturer. Hence the 1st opposite party was not liable to the after sale service of the product. However the product was defective within 3 months from the date of purchase. The opposite party has not a case that the system was working properly. Moreover there was no contention raised by the opposite party that the defects which was due to the negligent handling of the equipment by the complainant. The defect was occurred within 3 months from the date of purchase. Hence it was with within the period of warranty. Hence we have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the case of complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. 1) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3300/- and Rs.1600/- to the complainant and pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.500/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
If the order is not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu Thomas, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-is the copy of warranty card
