CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present. Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.
CC.No.298/08 Tuesday, the day of 23rd, February, 2010.
Petitioner. Sreekumar Vilangapara buildings Kalathipady Kottayam. (Adv.Sooraj M.Kartha) Vs. Opposite party Janeesh Proprietor Jico Industries Canal Road N.Paravur- 683 513.
O R D E R Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas, Member.
The complainant's case is as follows. The complaint has purchased an 800 watts inverter from the opposite party on 23-9-08 for Rs.15,500/-. At the time of purchase the opposite party assured five years replacement warranty to the battery and one year guarantee to the inverter. The payment of the inverter was made by cheque No.551935 of ICICI bank Ltd. Dated 29/9/08. From 27/9/08 onwards the inverter was not working. Inspite of several complaints and requests made by the complainant, the opposite party had not done anything to redress his grievances. The complainant alleged that the non functioning of the inverter and the act of opposite party has caused a lot of hardships and mental agony to him. The complainant further alleged that the act of opposite party amounted to deficiency in
-2- service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to replace the inverter orrefund the purchase money, Rs.5000/- as compensation and to award litigation cost.
Notice to opposite party served. Opposite party called absent hence set exparte. Points for consideration are:- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and exhibits A1 to A3. Point No.1. Heard the complainant and perused the documents. The invoice dated 23-9-08 evidencing the purchase of the inverter for Rs.15,500/- is produced and marked as exhibit A1. The guarantee card issued to the complainant is produced and marked as exhibit A2. The complainant averred that the opposite party assured five years replacement warranty and one year guarantee to inverter. The complainant further averred that from 27-9-2008 onwards the inverter was not working and inspite of the repeated complainants and requests the opposite party had not repaired or replaced it. As the opposite party chose not to contest, we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. In our view the act of opposite party in neither repairing nor replacing the inverter is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2. In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed. In the result the complaint is ordered as follows.
-3- The opposite party will replace the supplied inverter with a new inverter of the same brand and same model or will refund the purchase price of Rs.15,500/- to the complainant. The opposite party will also pay Rs.2000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and hardships and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy failing which the above mentioned sums will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation.
Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents of the complainant. Ext.A1 The original invoice dt. 23/9/08. Ext.A2 Original guarantee card. Ext.A3 Brochure.
Documents of the opposite party. NIL.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/4 copies.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
