IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of October, 2011
Filed on 07.05.2011
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.158/2011
Between
Sri. Clint K.C. 1. Madathil Marketing Company Kunnupurath House 28/1264, Near N.S.S. Karayogam Muhamma P.O., Cherthala K.P.Vallon Road, Kadavanthra Alappuzha Kochi – 682 020
(By Adv. T.T. Sudheesh)
2. Sri. Jestin, Proprietor
-do- -do-
O R D E R
SRI. K .ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Clint has filed the complaint before the Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties . The allegations are as follows:- He had purchased an Anu Solar Invertor- 800VA-Pannel 37 WP and Battery Relicell Jubular 12 V 120 AH worth Rs.25,480/- from the first opposite party on 19.11.2009. Within 6 months of its purchase, the set became defective. So he contacted the opposite parties and informed the details. He had also contacted the second opposite party and furnished the details of the set. One of the staff contacted him and he made some repair; and after that the set worked only for about 15 minutes and again became defective. He had contacted the opposite parties again and requested to cure the defects of the set, permanently through phone. But the opposite parties had not turned up. He had purchased the set from the company of the opposite parties on the basis of the assurance that the set would work with Solar .He had sent the advocate notice to the opposite parties on 24.02.11 for getting the price of the set. They had not responded the said notice. Hence this complaint seeking for a direction to get the price of the set from the opposite parties.
2. Notice were sent to the opposite parties. Even though, they have accepted the notice of this form, they have not appeared before the Forum. Hence they were declared as exparte on 17.09.2011 and proceeded the matter for an adjudication.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainant, this form has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the side of the
opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the price of the defective set.?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed the proof affidavit the support of his case and produced documents in evidence. Ext.A1 and A2 marked. Ext. A1 is the purchase invoice dated 19.11.2009, for an amount of Rs. 25480/- issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant. The invoice shows the details of the set. The invoice is sealed and signed by the opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the Advocate’s notice dated 24.2.11 sent by the Advocate of the complainant to the opposite parties, requesting to settle the matter.
5. We have examined the whole facts of this matter the detail and verified the documents produced by the complainant in evidence. It is alleged that the purchased set becomes defective within 6 months from the date of its purchase. The opposite parties had issued the bill for a sum of Rs. 25,480/- to the complainant at the time of purchase of the set (Ext.A1). The complainant had purchased the set on the basis of the assurance regarding the performance of the set offered by the opposite parties. But the set became defective and had not worked properly. So the complainant again contacted the opposite parties and requested to cure the defects permanently. But the opposite parties had not shown any sincere efforts to cure the defects and they had not turned up. The complainant sent advocate notice to the opposite parties requesting to rectify the defects or to return the price of the set. But the opposite parties were not taken any steps. On perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of this matter, we are of the view that there is grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the side of the opposite parties by way of refusing to rectify the defects or return the price of the set to the complainant, since the purchased set has defective. Several times, the complainant requested to the opposite parties to rectify the defects or return the price of the set. But the opposite parties purposefully evaded from the issues. So, it will amounts to deficiency in service. In case any defects of the set, the opposite parties are bound to rectify the defects permanently. But in this case, the opposite parties neglected to cure the defects and purposefully evaded from the liability. In this respect, the complainant is fully entitled to get the price of the set, since the set has manufacturing defects. The opposite parties cannot escape from the liability to return the price of the set, since the defects occurred frequently. The entire facts and circumstances of this case, shows that there is culpable negligence, grossest deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and cheating on the side of the opposite parties. In this context, the opposite parties are bound to pay costs and compensation to the complainant. It is to be noticed that even though the opposite parties have accepted the notice of this Forum, they are not cared to appear before this Forum to state the reason involved in this matter for an amicable settlement. It shows the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties in settling the matter in a fair way. The opposite parties cannot escape from their liability. In this respect, the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as genuine and that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the price of the said
Inverter ie. Rs.25,480/- (Rupees twenty five thousand four hundred and eighty only) to the complainant after collecting the defective set from him and further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, harassment and loss due to the culpable negligence, grossest deficiency in service, unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of purposeful refusal in rectifying defects of the set and denial to pay back the price of the said set purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties, and pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2011.
: Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Purchase invoice dated 19.11.2009
Ext. A2 - Advocate notice
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
