2. The 1st opposite party filed version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer under COPRA and the subject matter of the complaint does not constitute a complaint as defined under this Act. It is true that the 1st opposite party has met the complainant in connection with the sale of call identifier and the complainant has purchased our call identifier through the 1st opposite party for Rs.2,250/- towards its cost. The unit was connected with the telephone of the complainant. The complaint of the unit was attended to promptly as and when informed by the complainant. The complaint reported on 04..02..2000 was also attended by the 1st opposite party and the unit has no defect at all. After receiving the registered letter, the 1st opposite party again contacted the complainant and then he was informed by the complainant that the complainant is going to leave India for 3 months and he will contact the 1st opposite party as promised. It is submitted that there is absolutely no manufacturing defect with the unit and all the minor defects reported by the complainant were promptly attended and rectified by the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service in dealing with the complainant. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any relief as stated in the complaint. Other opposite parties 2 to 6 never turned up. No version filed. 3rd opposite party sent a reply dated 29..08..2000 to this Forum by post. In the said reply it is stated that 'we are manufacturers of Electronic Equipments and a joint venture of Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. We being a small company found it necessary to appoint sales and service dealers throughtout the country. The sales and after sales services are the entire responsibilities of our dealers...... We have written to M/s. Thomson Systems, Thiruvalla as per copy of the letter. Opposite parties 2 to 6 remains ex-parte.<br /> 3. The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i) Whether complainant is a consumer?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been manufacturing defect in call identifier (CLIP) purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Whether there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iv)Reliefs and Costs?<br /> 4. On the part of complainant, complainant filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. On behalf of opposite parties no evidence was adduced.<br /> 5. Points (i) to (iv): The first point requiring consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a call identifier (CLIP) AGT GOLD-SDLX-04-99-453 from opposite parties on payment of Rs. 2,250/-. The said call identifier was installed at complainant's residential telephone having No.442118 which is being used for his personal purpose. Under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act consumer is defined to mean any person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for consideration. It includes the user of goods other than the buyer or beneficiary of services other than the hirer. In this case complainant purchased call identifier from opposite parties for consideration as per Ext.P2 bill. The said purchase was for complainant's own use. In view of clause(d) of Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act complainant is a consumer. The next point to be discussed is whether there has been manufacturing defect in call identifier purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. Ext.P2 is the instruction manual for CLIP-400 issued to the complainant. Complainant's allegation is that the said call identifier purchased by him was not functioning properly. Even after repeated requests opposite parties failed to attend the fault. To ascertain the defects in the alleged good, expert commission was appointed and commission report was marked as Ext.C1. As per Ext. C1 commission report, the defects ascertained and recorded are as follows:<br /> 1. The LCD of Telephone call identifier is not showing the telephone number of the called party. This indicates defect in the main circuit board.<br /> 2. The 9 volts DC power supply unit supplied with the Telephone monitor is not functioning. Tested the power supply unit by a voltmeter and found the primary winding of the power supply transformer is open. This indicates defect in the power supply unit.<br /> 3. The essential 5 Volts DC Voltages for the functioning of the main circuit is not supplied by the voltage regulator circuit. This indicates defect in the voltage regulator circuit.<br /> 4. The contact surface of the IC socket used in the main circuit board is corroded and making loose contact with the circuit. A loose contact can interrupt the functioning of the caller identifier. This indicates the low quality of the IC socket employed in the main circuit board. [A good IC socket should have corrosion resistant Gold plated contact surface]. The commission report is concluded by two points.<br /> 1.The defects noted in the Telephone call identifier are of serious magnitude and is a manufacturing defect due to inferior quality components employed for the main circuit board. Since the main circuit board is the only key part in this caller identifier system a new Telephone call identifier unit replacement is necessary.<br /> 2. The 9 Volts DC power supply unit supplied with the call identifier is a locally made one and that is not working at all. Hence a replacement of the 9 volts DC power supply unit is necessary for the perfect functioning of the system.<br /> 6. Opposite parties never filed objection to commission report. In view of the allegations in the complaint and affidavit of PW1 and Ext.C1, we find that the above said Telephone call identifier and its power supply unit is having manufacturing defect. The next point to be discussed is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the affidavit of PW1, it is stated that from the very beginning the said call identifier was not functioning properly, when the matter was intimated to the 1st opposite party, 1st opposite party informed that they would cure the defect immediately. Even after repeated requests opposite parties had not turned up. Thereafter complainant sent letter to the 1st opposite party. Ext.P4 is the copy of the said letter dated 11..04..2000 sent to the 1st opposite party. Ext.P3 is the acknowledgement card. Even then opposite parties neither turned up nor responded positively. In his version, 1st opposite party submitted that opposite parties had not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service in dealing with the complainant. It was further stated in the version that opposite parties had rendered prompt service. There is no material on record showing that opposite parties had rendered any service. Even no affidavit was filed. Complainant was not cross examined. Even, opposite parties never filed objection to Ext.C1 Commission Report. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act have so much wide ramifications against a person who provide service against consideration. If he commits any fault, or shortcoming or deficiency is bound to compensate the consumers as to the loss or injury suffered by him. Here is a case where a call identifier purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties was not functioned within the period of warranty, and the fault was not attended by the opposite parties even after repeated requests nor did opposite parties attempt to replace the said call identifier till date, thereby opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. There cannot be worse deceptive practice than this. Deficiency in service is proved. Opposite parties cannot be allowed to escape from their liability to compensate the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties arejointly and severally directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,250/- (Rupees Two thousand two hundred and fifty only) towards the cost of the call identifier. On receipt of the said cost, complainant shall handover the call identifier to the opposite parties. Opposite parties shall also pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) towards cost of the complainant. The above said amounts are to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which opposite parties are liable to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% per year.<br /> 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.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of April, 2008.<br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT. <br /> BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> ad<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 374/2000<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> 1.Complainant's witness:<br /> <br /> PW1 : Nil<br /> II.Complainant's documents :<br /> <br /> 1.Ext.P1 : True copy of Instruction manual for clip - 400 <br /> P2 : True copy of cash bill dt. 08.07.1999 <br /> P3 : True copy of acknowledgement card <br /> P4 : True copy of letter issued by the complainant <br /> <br /> III.Opposite parties' witness : N I L<br /> <br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties' documents : N I L<br /> V.Court Exhibit:<br /> <br /> Ext.C1 : Commission Report<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />