D.O.F. 31.03.2011

                                                                                                                                                                   D.O.O. 14.06.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                  :                President

                   Smt. K.P.Preethakumari   :               Member

                   Smt. M.D.Jessy                 :               Member

Dated this the 14^th day of June,  2011.

C.C.No.107/2011

T.K. Ajitha,

W/o. T.V. Surendran,

Opp. Nayanaar Hospital,                                       :         Complainant

Old Bus Stand, Payyannur – 670 307

The Manager,

National Radio Electronics Corporation                                           

Main Road,                                                           :         Opposite party    

Payyannur  - 670 307  

O R D E R

Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of ` 55,000 as compensation with cost of this proceeding.  

          The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased an Onida three star air condition having model No.SO9 CFL3/S 12 CFL 3/S18 CFL3 from opposite party on 11.03.2010.  Complainant paid         ` 16,200 including the fitting charge.  On November 16 onwards the A/c was not working.  Complainant informed about the non-working of the A/c to the opposite party on several times directly and through telephone.  Eventhough the technician deputed by the opposite party tried to rectify the defect of the A/c, it was not working due to many other reasons.  Complainant suspect that opposite party has delivered an old machine to her.  Hence complainant met the opposite party at his shop and demanded to replace the non-working A/c or to repay the amount.  The opposite party again deputed another technician and the defect could not rectified.  Hence complainant sent a lawyer notice.   After the receipt of the notice also the opposite party has not taken any steps to clear the defect of the ac.  Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Complainant suffered mental pain. Hence she prays for an order directing opposite party to refund the value of the defective A/c along with ` 50,000 towards mental agony and suffering caused to the defective service of the opposite party and ` 5000 towards monetary loss. 

          Forum sent notices to opposite parties.  Opposite party remained absent and set exparte.  Hence the following points were taken for consideration.

1.           Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2.           Whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation?  If so what is the quantum?

3.           Relief and cost?

The evidence consists of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2 marked.

Points No.1 &2

          Through chief affidavit complainant stated that complainant purchased an Onida three star air condition from the shop of opposite party on 11.03.2010 by paying an amount of ` 15,300.  Ext.A1 bill support that claim.  The ac was having one year guarantee and 5 years warranty.  But no warranty card is seen produced by the complainant by stating that she has not obtained the same from opposite party.  Together with fitting charge complainant further paid an amount of         ` 900.  The A/c was working properly till 15.11.2010.  Thereafter eventhough A/c is working there was no cooling effect.  Complainant informed the matter to opposite party several times.  A technician deputed by opposite party inspected the A/c and replaced its board on 06.12.2010.  But there after its flying system got complaint.  Eventhough the technician tried their best by replacing several parts of the A/c and it was not operative.  Hence complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party on 31.12.2010.  The said notice is served on opposite party on 01.01.2011 as revealed by Ext.A2 AD card.   The demands made by the complainant through notice is not seen revealed in the complaint.  Office copy of the lawyer notice is also not produced.  Thereafter also technician came but the defect of A/c was not rectified.  Hence complainant demanded the opposite party to replace the A/c or return the purchase price.  The said request of the complainant is also not accepted by opposite party.  Complainant alleges that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Complainant claims that due to the defective service of the opposite party she suffered mental pain and loss of money.  In the complaint or in the affidavit filed by the complainant there is no claim to replace the defective A/c or return its value by the opposite party.   But she claims ` 50,000 towards mental agony and loss and       ` 5000 for financial loss. 

From Ext.A1 it is clear that the complainant purchased A/c from opposite party on 11.03.2010 by paying ` 15,300.  Eventhough no warranty card is seen produced complainant alleges that opposite party offered one year guarantee to the product.  From the nature of allegation it seems to be true.  Opposite party also not cared to appear and object the same.  Demanding to rectify the A/c or replace the complainant sent lawyer notice on 31.12.2010 and it was evident from Ext.A2.  Hence it is clear that if there is any complaint to the A/c it was happened within one year from the date of purchase and it is within the guarantee period. If at all there is any complaint to the A/c supplied by the opposite party, there is a duty cast upon the opposite party to rectify the defect to the satisfaction of the customer.  Hence from the available evidence it is clear that the defects of the A/c is not cured even after so many attempts by the technician. Hence the defective A/c is to be replaced or else the purchase price of the same is refunded by opposite party.  So we are of opinion that the opposite party is liable to replace the defective A/c  with a new one of the same brand or to pay ` 15,300 on returning the A/c.  No documentary evidence is adduced by complainant to prove monetary loss.  Complainant satisfactorily used the A/c for 8 months so she is not entitled to get any amount as compensation.

          In the result complaint is allowed directing opposite party to replace the defective A/c with a new one of the same brand or to refund  ` 15,300 the price within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  Complainant has to return his AC on payment of the amount.  Complainant is also entitled for ` 500 as cost but taking into consideration the enjoyment of A/c for a period of few months we are avoiding the compensation.

                               Sd/-                    Sd/-           Sd/-

President              Member      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Cash bill dated 11.03.2010.

A1(a).  Fitting charge bill dated 11.03.2010.

A2.  Acknowledgment card.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

       /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT