DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 5 th day of December, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President
: Smt. Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member
Date of filing: 12/06/2023
CC/155/2023
C M Manikandan - Complainant
S/o Manapulli Ezhuthachan
Chelangara House,
Kaloor Post, Keralassery
Palakkad 678 641.
(By Adv. V G Geetha)
V/s
Creative Electronics - Opposite party
H.O Door No. 5/2161, Sreekaryam
Thiruvananthapuram 695 017
Rep by its Authorised Officer/Signatory.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
Prepared by Smt Vidya A, MEMBER
- Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a car washer Agro -AM 16007 from the opposite party’s stall in an exhibition conducted in Palakkad on 17/10/22 for an amount of Rs 7400/-.
The opposite party’s officials canvassed and convinced the complainant by projecting the features of the product. They gave assurance for the repair or replacement of the product if any defect is caused during the warranty period.
They further contended that they have shops all over Kerala and in case of necessity, they will be available on phone and can contact for any issues in relation to the product.
After purchase, the complainant was using the product as per the guidelines given by the opposite party. When he was using it for the 10th time, the complainant got electric shock from the product and got frightened. When the complainant checked the product with a tester, he noticed that current is passing through the body of the product. Immediately he informed this matter to the opposite party and their staff came and took the product on 21/03/23. The opposite party promised to return the product within 3 days after repair. Eventhough the complainant contacted the opposite party several times to return it they did not return. After that there was no response from their part.
The complainant purchased the product which has 2 year warranty only on the assurance given by the opposite party. Even now the product is in the custody of the opposite party and they have not cured the defect and returned it to the complainant. The acts of the opposite party amounts to clear Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice. Due to the acts of the opposite party, the complainant suffered great mental agony and financial loss.
On 02/05/2023, the complainant sent Lawyer notice to the opposite party to resolve the issue, but they did not send any reply or return the product.
So he filed this complaint for
(1) Directing the opposite party to pay Rs 7500/- being the value of the product together with 12% interest from the date of payment ie, 17/10/22 till realization.
(2) To pay Rs 1 lakh towards compensation mental agony, Deficiency in Service and Unfair trade Practice committed by the opposite parties (3) To pay the cost of litigation and any other ad-interim reliefs sought by the complainant during the pendancy of the proceedings.
- After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Eventhough opposite party received notice, they did not appear or file version. Hence opposite party’s name was called in open court and they were set ex-parte.
- Complainant filed Proof Affidavit and Exts A1-A4 marked from his side. Ext A1 is the GST Invoice dated 17/10/22 issued by the opposite party to the complainant towards the receipt of advance amount of Rs 500/- for the purchase of the car washer AGRO AM 16007. It shows the balance amount of Rs 7400/-. Ext A2 is the GST Invoice issued by opposite party for the balance payment. In Ext A2, it is also noted that the product is supplied on 26/10/22 and 1 year warranty and 2 year service warranty. Ext A3 is the Lawyer notice issued to the opposite party and Ext. A4 is the Acknowledgement Card.
- Complainant’s contention is that the car washer he purchased from the opposite party’s stall in an Exhibition held in Palakkad become defective within the warranty period. He got electric shock while using it and on inspection he noticed that there is current passing through the product. On informing about this, opposite party’s staff took the product on 21/03/23. But they did not return it after repair. They did not reply to the Lawyer notice sent through his Lawyer or do anything to resolve the issue.
- The opposite party did not appear or file their version. So the complainant only has to prove a prima facie case against the opposite party.
- From the evidence adduced, it is clear that the complainant purchased the product on payment of a consideration of Rs 7900/-. It became defective within the warranty period. So the opposite party is bound to cure the defect in the product or replace it with a new one or refund its price. But here the opposite party has failed to resolve the issue. So there is clear Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite party and they are liable to compensate the complainant for that.
- The complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss when the product became defective within short span of time. Further the product is still with the opposite party and they did not return it. The acts of the opposite party made the complainant to file this litigation causing further inconveniences.
So the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the complaint.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
(1) We direct the opposite party to refund Rs 7,500/- (as claimed by the complainant) together with 10% interest from 17/10/22 till realization.
(2). We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs 10,000/- for their Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice and Rs 5,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered and Rs 2,500/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.300/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment
Pronounced in open court on this the5th day of December, 2023.
Sd/- Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
