CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th September, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER

               : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

Date  of filing : 17/8/2015

CC /112/2015

Tony Sylvester,

Mattayil House,

Kaikuthyparambu, Noorani Post,                      :        Complainant

Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District,

Kerala State. PIN: 678 004

(By Adv.P.Krishnakumar)  

                                                          Vs

1.Havels India Ltd., Rep. by Manager,              :        Opposite parties

   ORG Towers-20,

   Sector - 126, Express way,

   Noida – 201304, U.P., India.  

  (By Adv.Viju.K.Raphel)

2. M/s.Subix Electrical Super Market,

    Rep. by its Proprietor,

    Market Road, Palakkad,

    PIN 678 014, Kerala     

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased switches and other electrical fittings worth more than Rs. 50,000/-  manufactured by 1^st opposite party from the shop of the 2^nd opposite party during May 2012.  According to the complainant after 1 year of completion of work of his house, problems arose while operating electrical fittings especially switches.  The issue narrated in the complaint is that the outer cap of modular switches became loose and started to come out while using and hence there is a possibility of electrical shock while operating switches.  Thereafter the complainant made a written request to the opposite parties on 17/4/2015, for getting the problem redressed by replacement of all the products.  One of the representative of the 1^st opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and a reply was issued by the 1^st opposite party but they had not rectified the defects.  Due to this he suffered mental agony and his household electrical equipments got damaged.  This was caused because of the damaged and defective products supplied by the opposite parties and he has sought compensation of Rs.5 lakh and Rs.50,000/- as damages. 

The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte and the 1^st opposite party entered appearance and has filed written statement contending that there is no cause of action for the above complaint.    After registering a complaint with the 1^st opposite party a technician visited the complainant’s house to examine the problem.  It was found that outer cover of 4 of the switches had got loose.  The complainant was assured that the faulty switches will be replaced since they were within the warranty period.  But the complainant has not permitted the technician to change those switches and was adamant that whole switches in his house hold were to be changed.  Further it was specifically contented that loosening of the outer cover of the switches will not cause power fluctuations or power cutting resulting the damages to the technical equipment or even an electrical shock.  There is no manufacturing defects to the switches as alleged by the complainant. 

The complainant filed chief affidavit and 1^st opposite party filed application to cross examine the complainant.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1-A4.  Opposite parties also filed chief affidavit and complainant filed application to examine opposite party.  Application was allowed.  Opposite party was cross examined as DW1 and documents were marked as  Ext. B1-B7 from the side of 1^st  opposite party.  Opposite party also produced switches which was marked as MO1 and MO2 through the complainant while cross examination.  Evidence was closed.  Matter was heard. 

The following issues are to be considered.

          1.   Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite

                parties?

          2.   If so, what is the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

Complainant’s claim is for replacement of all these switches purchased by him or the cost thereof along with compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for physical and mental agony.    It is admitted by the complainant  during cross examination that at the time of filing of the complaint only four switches were faulty.  It is also  admitted by the complainant during cross examination that the technician who came from the side of the 1^st opposite party had offered to replace those switches and that 1^st opposite party had also issued a letter to the complainant offering to replace those switches which is evident from Ext.A2 as per the terms of the warranty condition.  The complainant had refused to accept the said offer.  It has been alleged by the complainant that after a year of installation of the switches, the outer cap of the switches became loose and started coming out on loosing and due to this defect, power fluctuation and power cut off became frequent by which many of the electrical equipments were damaged.   The complainant was assured that the faulty switches will be replaced as these were within the warranty period.  But he was not interested and demanded that the switches of the entire household had to be replaced.  He alleges that the number of defective switches are increasing day by day and he may have to approach  the Forum every time when the switches became defective.  The opposite party alleges that the intention of the complainant was that to arm twist to the opposite party by agreeing to his illegal demands and getting unjust enrichment by taking advantage of the Consumer Protection Act rendering in sequel thereto and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  They further contented that there is no possibility of loosing outer cover causing power fluctuation or power cut resulting in damage to the electrical equipments.  The complainant admitted during cross examination  that MO1 and MO2 are of same kind and nature as that of the switches installed in his house.  No copper content is seen outside the switches even if the outer cover of the switches came loose in that position and there is no possibility of electrical shock through the  plastic contents.  The opposite party had offered 10 year warranty for the switches manufactured by them.  The warranty is either to repair or replace switches within 10 year from the date of sale in case of any defect or issue.  In the present case  repeatedly the opposite party had undertaken for replacing the four defective switches at the time of filing of the complaint.  The complainant had not produced any evidence before the Forum to prove how many of his switches were damaged.  The alleged defective items have not been offered for examination and no document has been placed on record to prove his allegation that the loose out cover of switches have caused damaged to his electrical equipments.  There is no documentary proof or expert evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defects to switches that are installed in the house of the complainant there in.   Since the opposite party had undertaken to replace the defective switches the complaint is allowed to that extent.

The complainant had demanded Rs.5 lakhs with 18% interest per annum as compensation but he has not filed sufficient documents in support of his claim.  However  we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally  to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation  for the mental agony  suffered by the complainant along with Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of this litigation.  We also direct  the opposite parties to replace the defective 4 switches of the complainant at his premises within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order.   The afore said amount shall also be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the said amount from the date of order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th day of September, 2016.

                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                      Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                         Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

                                                                              Sd/-

                                                            V.P. Anantha Narayanan

                                                                       Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of complaint letter dtd.17/04/2014  issued by complainant to 1^st opposite party .

Ext.A2 – Reply letter dtd.27/04/2014 issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ext.A3 series- Copy of  Lawyer notice dtd. 25/05/2015and original postal receipt.

Ext.A4- Acknowledgement Card of 2^nd opposite party.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1-Notary attested copy of ISO certification dtd.31/08/2013  issued to the 1^st opposite party.

Ext.B2- Notary attested copy of license dtd.7/07/2015  issued  by Bureau of Indian Standards.

Ext.B3-Notary attested copy of license issued  by Bureau of Indian Standards.

Ext.B4- Notary attested copy of test report dtd.30/07/2010  issued  by Electrical Research and Development Association.

Ext.B5- Notary attested copy of test report dtd.31/07/2010  issued  by Electrical Research and Development Association.

Ext.B6- Notary attested copy of test report dtd.31/07/2010  issued  by Electrical Research and Development Association.

Ext.B7-The warranty for the switches along with price list and its installation process.

MO1-Sealed switch

MO2-non sealed switch

Witness marked on the side of complainant

PW1 -Tony Sylvester        

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1-Aslam.V.S

Cost Allowed

Rs.2000/- as cost