THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.531/2015

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2016

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                 :  President)

                                                                        Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                       :  Member

                                                                         Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.        :  Member

ORDER

Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:

            This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            The case of the petitioner is that, he had purchased an inverter system 600VA from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 25/01/2014 for Rs.15,749/-. The system carried a warranty for 2 years. But within the warranty period the equipment developed defects. So he made a complaint on 26/04/2015 as Complaint No. 99992015042035. Then he received a message that a technician has been deputed to attend the defect. But the technician over telephone informed him that he was not given the necessary spare parts to do the repair work. Again on 26/08/2015, the system became out of order and stopped functioning. When complaint again the same reply was repeated by the technician. Thereafter he sent a complaint through e-mail to the company but no use.

            According to the petitioner the company is bound to act as per their warranty and the denial of the service when needed amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their part and this caused much mental pain, financial loss and other difficulties to him. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to install a defect free new inverter in the place of the defective one and also to pay compensation and cost.

            Though the opposite parties received notice issued from this Forum, the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties didn’t file any version and hence they set ex-parte.

            The 2^nd opposite party filed version with the following contentions. Admittedly they have sold the inverter to the petitioner, but they have already stopped the agency of the 1^st opposite party about 1 1/2 years ago and hence they are an unnecessary party to this complaint. It is submitted that the system was in good working condition while selling the same to the petitioner. As the warranty is issued by the 1^st opposite party they are liable to repair or replace the same as per their warranty conditions. As a dealer they are not responsible for the defects if any with the system and is not liable to repair or replace the same or to compensate the petitioner as alleged. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their side and prayed to dismiss the petition against them.

            The petitioner filed affidavit and produced 4 documents to prove his case and these are marked as Ext.s A1 to A4 as evidence on his side. Ext. A1 is the copy of cash memo dated 25/01/2014 for Rs.15,749/-. Ext. A2 is the copy of warranty card issued by the 1^st opposite party and Ext. A3 is the copy of e-mail complaint dated 21/03/2015. From the evidence it is seen that Ext. A2 warranty card is issued by the 1^st opposite party and as the manufacturer they are liable to make good the loss of the petitioner. So also as the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party is also liable for the deficiency of the 1^st opposite party. They are not appeared or filed version, or challenged the averments of the petitioner or the veracity of the documents produced and marked. Hence the averments of the petitioner stand unchallenged and proved as far as concerned with the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties. After selling a product and issuing warranty, it is the bounden duty of the manufacturer to do the after sale service promptly and correctly, through their service centre. The denial of the same amounts to deficiency in service on their side.

            Considering the facts of the case and evidence on record, we are also of the view that the denial of after sale service promptly and neatly is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties. Hence the following order is passed.

            The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to replace the defective inverter with a defect free new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the difficulties suffered and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. If they are not complying this order within the stipulated time, they have to refund the purchase price of the inverter with 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase of the system till payment. In any case they can take back the defective inverter, on compliance of the order.

Dated this the 14^th  day of  November, 2016

Date of filing: 13/10/2015

SD/-MEMBER                              SD/-  PRESIDENT                      SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Cash memo dated 25/01/2014

A2. Copy of warranty card

A3. Copy of complaint through e-mail

A4. Copy of acknowledgement

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

None

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                                           

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT