O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:- The complainant purchased one 750W inverter plus tubular battery from the opposite party on 28/07/08 for Rs.13,250/-. The opposite party assured that the warranty period of the battery is 3 years from the date of purchase and one year for the inverter. Right from the beginning, the inverter and the battery were not working properly. On intimating the matter, the opposite party took the battery and the inverter to the workshop on 29/12/08 and after rectification returned on 02/01/2009. But after the rectification work also the malfunctioning persisted. So the said matter was informed to the opposite party and they took the machine again for repairing on 18/6/10 and was returned on 02/07/10. Again the battery and the inverter showed malfunctioning from 04/07/10 onwards. The complainant alleged that he purchased the inverter and battery believing in the assurances of the opposite party. The complainant further alleged that the act of opposite party is clear case of deficiency in service and that the deficient acts caused mental agony and monetory loss to him. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the refund of purchase price, compensation Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost Rs.2500/-. Notice was served to the opposite party but the opposite party was called absent and hence set expartee. Points for consideration are:- i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the opposite party and exhibits A1 to A2. Point No.I Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant produced an original receipt dtd 28/07/08 for Rs. 13,250/- and it is marked as ext A1. On scanning ext A1, it is clear that the inverter is having one year guarantee and battery is having three years guarantee. The complainant averred that the aforesaid battery and inverter started showing malfunctioning from the beginning itself. The complainant further averred that the malfunctioning persisted even after two repairings. The complainant next averred that as the opposite party had not heeded to their repeated demands for rectification of the said items and therefore sent an advocate’s notice to the opposite party. Evidencing the aforesaid averment the complainant produced the office copy of the advocate’s notice and it is marked as extA2. As the opposite party chose not to contest, the averments of the complainant remain unchallenged. The act of opposite party in not repairing the defects of the inverter and battery which occured during the warranty period is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point no.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party will refund the purchase price of Rs.13,250/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-. At the time of refunding the opposite party can take back the defective inverter and battery. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Appendix The documents of the complainant Ext.A1-Original receipt dtd 28/07/08 Ext.A2-Office copy of the advocate’s notice The documents of the opposite party Nil. Despatched on / Received on By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
