IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 12/2020 (filed on 17-01-2020)
Petitioner : Philip P.M.
Pulickal House,
Maryland P.O.
Melukavumattom,
Kottayam – 686 652.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : Kallar Harikumar,
Secretary,
Teltron Electronics Development
Society, Reg. No. T 455,
Panavila, Bakery Junction,
Thiruvananthapuram- 695014.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows.
On believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant had purchased a surge protector on 07-06-18 to protect his household electrical equipment from lightening. The said property was installed by the persons of the opposite party. The complainant had paid Rs.26,475/- for the protector to the opposite party. Further on 03-11-2019, the surge protector became damaged due to lightening causing damage to his invertor, which was installed in the residential building. The complainant informed the same to the customer care of the opposite party. But there was no response from the side of opposite party. Thereafter on 19-11-2019 complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party demanding the repair of the surge protector. But opposite party did not turned up. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying an order directing the opposite party to rectify the surge protector along with cost of Rs.5,000/- which was incurred by him to rectify the defect of the invertor and cost of litigation.
Though notice was served to the opposite party, he did not care to appear before this Commission or to conduct his case. Hence opposite party set exparte.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence we would like to consider following point.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and what are the reliefs?
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a surge protector from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.26,425/- with an object to protect his household electrical equipments from lightening. It is further averred in the affidavit that the said surge protector was damaged in lightning and thereby caused damage to this invertor also. Ext.A2 proves that the said protector was installed by the opposite party on 07-06-2018 in the house of the complainant. Ext.A2 warranty card proves that the opposite party had offered one year warranty for the manufacturing defect of the equipment and 3 year to the service guarantee for the system against the manufacturing defect. Thus it is clear from Ext.A2 that the opposite party offered 3 years on payment basis for the manufacturing defect after the lapse of the 1st year. According to the complainant, the said equipment was became defective on 30-11-2019 due to the lightning that was after one year guarantee which was offered by the 1st opposite party. But as per condition No.2 of the Ext.A2, the opposite party is liable to provide paid service guarantee over 3 years against the manufacturing defect of the product. According to the complainant, the system became defective only due to the manufacturing defect of the equipment. Ext.A2 is the demand notice by the complainant to the opposite party calling upon the opposite party to rectify the defect of the surge protector and compensation of Rs.5,000/- which is incurred by the complainant to rectify his invertor. There is no evidence before us to contradict the version of the complainant and evidence adduced by the complainant. The opposite party failed to appear before the Commission and adduced any evidence to the effect that surge protector which was sold by them had no manufacturing defect on 30-11-19. Thus we are constrained to accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. We are of the opinion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not rectifying the defects of the surge protector as per the terms and conditions of the Ext.A2 guarantee card. No doubt the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.5,000/- to rectify the defect which was caused to his invertor due to the failure of surge protector. In this circumstances, we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to rectify the defect of the surge protector on free of cost within 10 days from the date of receipt of Order.
- We hereby direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- which is incurred by the complainant to rectify the defect of the invertor.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation.
It is further cleared that the amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 10th day of September, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 - Surge protector guarantee card
A2 - Copy of letter dtd.19-11-19 by complainant to opposite party
A3 – Receipt
A4 – Postal AD card.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
