BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 155/2010 Filed on 29.05.2010
Dated : 30.09.2010
Complainant:
Hariharan. V, T.C 37/564(1), Chottupura Street, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-23.
(Appeared in person)
Opposite party :
The Manager, Indian Marketing Corporation, Mettukkada Junction, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
This O.P having been taken as heard on 27.09.2010, the Forum on 30.09.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Attracted by the advertisement and the demonstration in an exhibition conducted in V.J.T. Hall of the opposite party, the complainant purchased a mist fan from the opposite party. The opposite party's staff installed the fan in the house of the complainant on 22.04.2010 and the complainant paid Rs. 4,250/- as its price. On the first day itself complainant felt that there is no cool or air as per their promise. The complainant on the next day itself approached the opposite party and informed the defect. Then they assured that they will send their mechanic to check the motor. But nobody came there to check the fan. Thereafter the complainant several times directly and through telephone contacted the opposite party. But they never turned up to settle the matter. The complainant alleges that the working condition and cooling capacity of the mist fan is very low even compared with an ordinary fan. That the act of the opposite party in misleading the complainant by false advertisement is definitely amounting to unfair trade practice and the act of the opposite party in not rectifying the defect of the fan is amounting to their deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
The opposite party, Manager, Indian Marketing Corporation, accepted notice from this Forum, but they did not turn up to contest the case. Hence opposite party remains exparte.
As per the application submitted by the complainant, the Forum appointed Mr. Moses Sam as the expert commission to test the functioning of the mist fan. The commissioner examined the present condition of the mist fan supplied by the opposite party and filed report which is marked as Ext. C1. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents, which are marked as Exts. P1 & P2.
Points that would arise for consideration are:-
Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- Attracted by the advertisement of the opposite party the complainant had purchased a mist fan from the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 4,250/- on 22.04.2010. Ext. P1 is the evidence of that purchase. Ext. P2 is the warranty card. As per this document opposite party assures one year warranty. The complainant has stated that on the first day itself it was revealed that the working condition of the mist fan is very poor. There is no cooling or sufficient air as promised from its functioning. The complainant argued that he was exploited by the opposite party through their false advertisement and promise. As per the application of the complainant, this Forum appointed Mr. Moses Sam as expert commissioner as per Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The commissioner examined the working of the mist fan and filed report before this Forum. The commissioner reported that the product supplied by the opposite party is inferior in nature and not at all matches with the performance guaranteed by them during the supply. The printing of the packing claims the product is 'imported', but it is beyond doubt that the product is a locally made one. The mist fan lacks the parameters of even a small pedestal fan. There is no sufficient cooling due to the improper designing of fan blades. Most of the parts are made of cheap plastic which are evident from the photographs. From this report we find that there has been unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party through selling this fan to the complainant. The act of the opposite party by selling low quality product fan to the complainant by accepting high price and thereby making unlawful gain definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. So the opposite party has to pay sufficient compensation to the complainant for his mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 4,250/-to the complainant and opposite party shall pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as costs of the proceedings. The opposite party has the right to take possession of the mist fan from the complainant's house after the compliance of the above order. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of September 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 155/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of Order Form dated 22.04.2010
P2 - Copy of warranty certificate.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
V COURT EXHIBITS :
C1 - Commission Report.
PRESIDENT
jb
