BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd of November 2010
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.21/2010
(Admitted on 23.1.2010)
K.H.Subramanya,
So K.H.Shankar,
Aged about 39 years,
Amba Studio, Maulana Complex,
Shiroor, Opp Market,
Byndoor, Kundapur Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Abubakar Siddiq.M.P.)
VERSUS
Manager,Proprietor,
Sri Gurukrupa Agencies,
6 9 224 1, Durga Mahal,
Mannagudda,
Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri Nagesh Kumar.B.)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, he had purchased a power line make home UPS/Inverter along with battery for a sum of Rs.19,500/- on 14.11.2006 from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party issued two years warranty for inverter and one year warranty for the battery and also represented that their product is of good quality. On assurance by the Opposite Party, the Complainant purchased the above said UPS/inverter. It is stated that, after purchase of the above said inverter many a times the said equipment found problems and the same has been complained to the Opposite Party on one or two occasions. The Opposite Party tried to repair the same and thereafter on 01.07.2008 the above said inverter has been handed over to the Opposite Party for repair and the Opposite Party issued a delivery challan for the same. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party many times but the Opposite Party not repaired the above said inverter nor returned the inverter to the Complainant till this date. Subsequently the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 11.07.2009 the same has been served to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party not complied the demand made therein and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with new battery and UPS/Inverter.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version denied that the Complainant purchased a power line make home UPS/Inverter of 1400 capacity along with battery on 14.11.2006 for Rs.19,500/- from the Opposite Party and also denied the warranty issued to the alleged UPS/Inverter. It is contended that, the warranty card produced along with the complaint is concocted and not issued by the Opposite Party.
It is further submitted that, the alleged UPS/Inverter described in the complaint is not all produced or manufactured by this Opposite Party, the Invoice produced along with the complaint is also concocted document and the Complainant has unnecessarily made false allegations and contended that the complaint is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the UPS/Inverter purchased by him from the Opposite Party on 14.11.2006 proved to be defective?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri K.H.Subramanya (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C5 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.S.Surendra Kamath (RW1) of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both Parties are produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant sworn to the fact that, he had purchased a power line make home UPS/inverter along with two numbers of battery for a sum of Rs.19,500/- on 14.11.2006 from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party issued two years warranty for the said inverter and one year warranty for battery. On assurance by the Opposite Party, the Complainant purchased the above said units. After purchase of the above said units many a times the said equipment found problem and the same has been tried to repair by the Opposite Party and thereafter, on 01.07.2008 the above said inverter has been handed over to the Opposite Party for repair and the Opposite Party in turn issued a delivery challan for the same. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party not repaired the above said inverter nor returned the inverter to the Complainant till this date, hence he came up with this complaint supported by Ex C1 to C5.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party denied the very purchase of the above said unit on 14.11.2006 by paying Rs.19,500/- from this Opposite Party and also denied the warranty. It is submitted that, the alleged UPS/inverter in the complaint is not at all manufactured by this Opposite Party and the invoice produced by the Complainant is concocted and the allegations made in the complaint are false.
We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and also perused the materials placed on record. Firstly, whether the Complainant proves that the above said unit has been purchased by him from the Opposite Party? In order to support his case, the Complainant produced Ex C1 to C5. The Ex C1 i.e., the cash memo dated 14.11.2006 issued by the authorized signatory of the Opposite Party reveals that, the Complainant purchased 1400 watts V.A. power line make home UPS with two number batteries by paying Rs.19,500/- which includes 4% VAT. The Ex C2 is the delivery challan dated 01.07.2008 issued by the service in-charge of the Opposite Party shows that, 1.4 KVA power line inverter with two numbers of batteries received for repair purpose by the Opposite Party from the Complainant. The Ex C3 is the manual of power line UPS/Inverter manufactured by the Opposite Party, wherein it shows the inverter manufactured by the Opposite Party has warranty against all defects in workmanship and materials under normal use for a period of two years from the date-shipment to the original user. One year warranty for the battery supplied with UPS/Inverter against all manufacturing defects under normal use. The Ex C3 is the legal notice issued by the Complainant dated 11.07.2009, wherein, the Complainant narrated all the facts alleged in the complaint and called upon the Opposite Party to repair the above said inverter/UPS along with battery within 15 days from the date of notice. The Ex C4 is the reply to the legal notice issued by the Opposite Party, wherein, the Opposite Party denied the very purchase of the above said unit from them and also denied the warranty and other allegations. Apart from the above documents, we have perused the evidence part of the parties deposed before this FORA in page No.1 and 2
From the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before this FORA clearly shows that, the subject disputed unit was purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party is proved. Because the Opposite Party in his personal cross-examination categorically admitted that, when he is not there in his shop, the in-charge of his shop issues the warranty card and other transactions. Further he has categorically admitted that, the TIN number 29350097159 on the Ex C1 is pertaining to the Opposite Party. When that being the case, the denial of the very purchase of the unit cannot be acceptable. Further, the Opposite Party admitted that, the units manufactured by them has warranty for a period of two years and one year warranty for the battery supplied with UPS/inverter manufactured by them. The warranty card produced before this FORA shows that, the Opposite Party agreed to issue two years warranty and the correction made in the warranty card has been counter signed by the authorized persons of the Opposite Party. Because in personal cross-examination the Opposite Party categorically admitted that, the battery manufactured by him is provided with one or two years warranty as stated supra. If any amendment in the warranty card, the Opposite Party makes the correction and issuing to the customer. When that being the case, the warranty card produced before the FORA though appears to be genuine but it is unfortunate to note that the description given in the warranty card is not tallying with the Ex C1. Just because the Complainant not produced the warranty card, it cannot be treated that the above said unit purchased on 14.11.2006 has no warranty. Every product has warranty either for two years or for one year. When the Opposite Party in his personal cross-examination admitted that, the unit manufactured by him has two years warranty for the inverter and one year warranty for the battery. Admittedly, the inverter purchased on 14.11.2006 which is within the warranty period but the battery purchased by the Complainant has no warranty in this case.
However, we observed that, the documents produced by the Complainant i.e., Ex C1 clearly reveals that, the Complainant purchased the above said Inverter i.e., 1,400 VA Power Line Home UPS with two numbers batteries and paid Rs.19,500/- to the Opposite Party on 14.11.2006. Since the Opposite Party admitted in his personal cross-examination that, when he is absent the consumers can purchase the goods from the in-charge of his firm/shop. Under that circumstances, the Ex C1 cannot be rejected in this case. On the other hand, the Opposite Party also admitted that, they manufacture the power line make home UPS/inverters. The Ex C5 is the warranty card, wherein, the description of the unit mentioned in page No.9 is not tallying with the Ex C1 i.e., the tax invoice issued by the Opposite Party but the Ex C2 is the delivery challan, wherein, the Complainant handed over the unit purchased on 14.11.2006 as per Ex C1 to the Opposite Party for repair is proved in the said document. The description of the unit in the delivery challan and the Ex C1 are one and the same and it is proved beyond doubt that, the Opposite Party received the above said unit for repair. When a manufacturer sells their product to the consumer herein the Complainant is duty bound to repair the said unit in case of defect found therein. In the instant case, the delivery challan issued by the Opposite Party shows that the unit purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party on 14.11.2006 is defective and the same has been handed over to the Opposite Party for repair. No doubt, the Complainant has failed to produce any document before this FORA to show that the above said product purchased by him has warranty for 2 years. But we cannot decline that the above said unit has no warranty. In the instant case, admittedly the Complainant delivered the unit for repair to the Opposite Party, the same has been acknowledged by the Opposite Party by issuing a delivery challan i.e., Ex C2 as stated supra but the same has not been repaired/delivered to the Complainant till this date amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
However, we have observed that, the Opposite Party being a manufacturer is not supposed to take an inconsistent plea by denying the very purchase of the product by the Complainant. We have perused that, the Opposite Party in order to avoid the liability/responsibility taken inconsistent defence before this FORA by denying the purchase of the product. In the instant case, it is proved beyond doubt that the Complainant purchased the Inverter/UPS from the Opposite Party on 14.11.2006 and paid Rs.19,500/- and the same has been delivered to the Opposite Party on 01.07.2008 for repair and the same has been received by the service in-charge of the Opposite Party. We have noticed that, the Opposite Party not repaired nor delivered after the repair till this date amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Party is hereby directed to replace a brand new UPS/Inverter along with new battery with fresh warranty and also pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is hereby directed to replace a brand new UPS/Inverter along with new battery with fresh warranty and also pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
On failure to comply the above said order, the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 11 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of November 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri K.H.Subramanya – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 14.11.2006: Tax Invoice with regard to the purchase of Battery and U.P.S./Inverter.
Ex C2 – 1.7.2008: Delivery Challan issued by the Gurukripa Agencies.
Ex C3 – 11.7.2009: Regd. Lawyer’s Notice.
Ex C4 – 29.7.2009: Reply of Opposite Party.
Ex C5 – : Manual along with warranty card of Power Line UPS/Inverter.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Mr.S.Surendra Kamath of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
-Nil-
Dated:23.11.2010 PRESIDENT
