DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of June 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 01/09/2015
: Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.122/2015)
K.V.Somanathan,
S/o.Balan Nair,
Sona Nivas, Jawahar Nagar,
Kanniyampuram,
Ottapalam Taluk,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. A.V.Ravi)
V/s
1.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Mahindra Powerol Business
Gate No.2, Akurli Road,
Kandivli East Mumbai 400 101
(Rep.by General Manager)
2.M/s.C.P.Aircon Systems
Devi Complex, 14/348/3
Valiparamba Road,
Near Stadium, Palakkad – 678 013
(Rep.by its Proprietor) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint.
Complainant purchased a Mahindra Powerol inverter and UPS Battery model No.600 VA Sinware from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.15,833.11 on 22/1/2013 as per Bill No.B.00137. 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the said product. The said product was used by the complainant for a short period and thereafter some defects were noticed and it was found faulty. The complainant was unable to use the article and the defects were noticed within the period of warranty itself.
At the time of purchase, the 2nd opposite party offered 24 months warranty to the inverter and UPS Battery. But the product found defective in the month of November 2014, even before the expiry of warranty period which shows that there was manufacturing defects. When the product was found defective, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for service. The complainant contacted over telephone by way of booking complaint, sent E-mails, but there was no positive response from the side of the opposite parties. Then the complainant issued a notice dated 13/6/2015 through his counsel to the opposite parties and after receiving the notice, the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and promised that they will come and rectify the defects. Believing the words of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant waited for the last two months. But no positive action was taken from the side of the opposite parties till today.
Complainant submitted that due to the inaction from the side of opposite parties, the complainant suffered monetary loss as well as mental agony. The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to replace the above product or to pay Rs.15, 853.11 to the complainant with interest @12% per annum, to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice played by the opposite parties, to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay cost of proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite parties. After receiving the notice, both parties did not appear before the forum. Hence set them exparte.
Evidence adduced by the complainant consists of his chief affidavit and Ext A1 to A3 were marked. Expert commissioner was appointed to examine the inverter and battery. After the examination of the same he filed detailed report which was marked as Ext C1.
The following issues are considered
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1& 2.
We have perused the documents filed before the forum. Ext A1 proves that complainant had purchased Mahindra Powerol 600 VA Sine Wave H UPS for Rs.6649/- and Mahindra Powerol 110 AH 12 V battery for Rs.9200/- from 2nd opposite party on 22-1-2013. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15863/- for the purchase of these products. Perusal of Ext A2 revealed that 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the inventor and battery and the products have the replacement warranty for 24 months. Complainant submits that the above products were not functioning from November 2014 i.e. well within the warranty period.
As per the request of the complainant, expert commissioner was appointed and filed report which was marked as Ext C1. Commission report revealed that the inverter and battery were not in a working condition. Relying upon the report of the commissioner, we are of the view that the products have some defects. As the opposite parties remained exparte, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the above circumstances we are of the view that even though the inverter and battery were not functioned within the period of warranty opposite parties neither repaired nor replaced even after sending lawyer notice to them. In this case opposite parties failed to give proper service after sale to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. As it is a clear proof of deficiency in service, the opposite parties have the liability to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and financial loss. Similarly as the inverter and battery were not working within the period of warranty, opposite parties have the liability to either replace the products or pay the cost of products to the complainant.
Under the above circumstances we allowed the complaint. Hence we direct Opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the inverter and battery with new one or to pay Rs.15,863/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand eight hundred and sixty three only) being the cost of the inverter and battery and to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant.
On the execution of the above order opposite parties are at liberty to take back the defective inverter and battery from the complainant.
Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of June 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Bill dated 22/01/2013 for the purchase of battery from opposite party
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card
Ext. A3 - Registered notice sent by complainant’s advocate to opposite party dated
13/6/2015
Commission Report
Ext.C1 – Commission Report filed by P.V.Vijayakumar, Proprietor, V Electronics
Cost
Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
