KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 796/2006
JUDGMENT DATED: 15-01-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. M/s Exide Industries Ltd.,
48/1717-C, G.A.Bldg.,
Deshabhimani Road,
Elamakkara, Kochi-682 026.
: APPELLANTS
2. M/s J.M.J. traders,
Velloorkunnam Market P.O,
Muvattupuzha.
(By Adv.M/s V.V.Sidharthan)
Vs.
3. M.V.Jaison,
Mutholathottathil House,
Pothanicadu.P.O,
Muvattupuzha (Via).
: RESPONDENTS
4. M/s Safe Power Technologies (P) Ltd.,
Suvarna, Ponoth Road,
Kaloor, Kochi-17.
(By Adv. For R1 : Sri.Tom Joseph)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order dated:27/9/2006 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.No.244/06. The appellants are the opposite parties 2 and 3 and the respondent is the complainant in the above said OP.
2. The appellant challenged under the direction of the Forum below in CC.244/06, directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- for which the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
3. As per the complainant purchased an inverter on 16/12/2005 for Rs.3000/- from the 1st opposite party. On 15/10/2005 he purchased an Exide battery for Rs.3700/- from the 3rd opposite party. The said battery was attached to the new inverter. One year warranty was given to the inverter and the battery by their manufacturers. But after two months from the date of installation of the inverter, the working hours started diminishing. Though 2 ½ hours was offered by the 1st opposite party, it functioned only up to ½ an hour. Even though the inverter was taken to the 1st opposite party by spending Rs.750/- towards vehicle charges, they did not rectify the defects, and alleged defect to the battery. Therefore, the battery was taken to the 2nd opposite party but they stated that there was no defects to it and alleged defect on the inverter. Ultimately the complainant lost inverter facility. The complainant claims refund of the price of the inverter and the battery, compensation of Rs.2000/- and cot of the proceedings from the opposite parties.
4. The 1st opposite party admitted the sale of the inverter and stated that 2 months after the purchase there was complaint about the back up time of the UPS. But on examination the UPS was working properly the back up time depends on battery capacity and conditions of battery used. Hence he is not responsible for the defect of the battery. The 2nd opposite party contended that the battery supplied to the complainant had 12 voltage having a capacity of 70 ampere per hour and it was intended for use as inverter. The battery was brought to the service station on 23/3/2006 in a discharged condition. On testing it was found that the battery was not picking up charge and showed sudden failure. The damage to the battery was on account of the manufacturing defect of the inverter. Thus, opposite parties have no liability in the matter. The evidence consisted of Ext.A1 to A5 for the complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 for the opposite parties. The opposite parties was examined witness as DW1. The complainant has filed argument notes. The Forum below examined the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case and taken a view that there is deficiency of service committed by all the opposite parties. They directed the 1st opposite party to refund to the complainant the price of the inverter and also the other opposite parties to refund to the complainant the price of the battery within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of their order by them. This appeal prefers from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below.
5. On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant and opposite party/respondent are present and argued their cases. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that there is no evidence from the part of the complainant to prove that either the battery or the inverter is defective. He also submitted that it is a duty of the complainant to prove it through the expert witness. In the absence of the expert evidence and conclusive opinion about the defect of the components respectively. The Forum below has no legal right to pass such an impugned order. Hence this order shall be set aside by allowing this appeal. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the complainant is the sufferer by the purchase of an inverter and battery. It is not his duty to prove the defect. This already applied by the opposite parties to the respondent/complainant. As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as per the complaint.
6. This commission heard in detail and perused the available evidence from the case file and seen that the Forum below rightly answered all the questions arised in this case for consideration. Since the entire value of the inverter and the battery is negligible, it is not possible and practical to spend more than the price of the goods for the appointment of an commissioner. In this case it is the duty of the opposite parties to prove that their supplied goods are free from defects and otherwise they are liable to pay compensation in the head of deficiency of service. In the circumstance we are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is legally sustainable. We uphold the order passed by the Forum below.
In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
