BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 474/2004 <br /> Dated : 16.06.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> B. Surendran, S/o Narayana Panicker, ‘Rohini’, Vencode, Panachamoodu, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. V.J. Jayakumar Abraham)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Mohanan, Proprietor, Delta Tech, S.M. Building, Bus Stand Junction, Neyyattinkara.<br /> 2.Samsi Bose, Kalamanzil, Chemparathivila, Vazhuthoor P.O, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 3.The Managing Director, Metascan Electronics& Communication Pvt. Ltd., Kamala Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad – 62. <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 12.09.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 13.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is conducting a STD booth near Panachamoodu Junction in Neyyattinkara in the name and style as “ESTHREE ENTERPRISES”. For the STD booth the complainant purchased a billing machine from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The name of the billing machine is Call Master Series, PCO Monitor for CM 500/CM 600 vide bill No. 318 dated 18.04.2003. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have guaranteed for and on behalf of the 3rd opposite party that the machine will have free service and guarantee for a period of one year. Believing the opposite parties the complainant started the booth with that guarantee. After a few weeks the machine became defective and as informed by the complainant the technician of the opposite parties came and repaired the machine after so much delay. The machine is still defective. The delay of repairing the machine caused considerable loss to the complainant. The opposite parties not acted in accordance with the guarantee. The machine became useless because of the defects in the machine. The complainant tried to contact the opposite parties and requested to rectify the defects. So far the defects were not rectified. Thereafter the complainant and opposite parties became enemical terms and the complainant was forced to approach another service center and brought a technician and repaired the machine on 28.08.2003 after paying service charge of Rs. 700/- during the pendency of guarantee period. <br /> <br /> The complainant alleges that the opposite parties’ behaviour caused mental agony, disgrace, disgradation, loss and pain to the complainant and his STD booth. The illegal act happened because of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party being the agent to the other opposite parties and the 2nd opposite party being the dealer to the 3rd opposite party all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. <br /> <br /> The opposite parties remained exparte. Complainant has filed affidavit and examined as PW1 and 6 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. <br /> <br /> Points to be decided:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has produced 6 documents to prove his case. Ext. P1 is the warranty card. Ext. P2 is the bill for Rs. 12500/-. Ext. P3 is the bill for Rs. 700/- issued by Tripple Aar Tele Traders. Ext. P4 is the copy of legal notice dated 26.05.2004, Ext. P5 is the returned notice and Ext. P6 is the postal receipt. <br /> In this case the complainant has produced the bill for Rs. 12500/- being the price of the billing machine dated 18.04.2003. The certificate of warranty produced by the complainant shows that the warranty period is for one year. The documents show that the defect occurred during warranty period. The complainant's repeated demands to the opposite parties to rectify the defects were denied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to rectify the machine within the warranty period. The warranty period is from 17.04.2003 to 17.04.2004. As per Ext. P3 service has been seen done for the same for Rs. 700/- which is seen issued to the complainant. The opposite party neither turned up to deny the same nor they have contested the case. From the above it is seen that the machine did not function satisfactorily during the warranty period. The complainant has no case with regard to the manufacturing defect. His specific case is for the deficiency in rendering service during warranty period. Hence he claims compensation only for deficiency in service. The opposite party did not honour their commitments under the terms of warranty as a consequence of which the complainant had to incur substantial expenses in getting the machine repaired. The Ext. P4 shows that this matter has been duly brought to the notice of the opposite parties. Hence this Forum is inclined to conclude that this became defective during warranty period and this is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> The complainant has succeeded to prove his case through the documents and affidavit filed by him. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for their deficiency in service. The opposite parties have failed to repair the machine in time within the warranty period. So the complainant had suffered a lot for functioning his STD booth due to the defective billing machine. The complainant has produced a bill issued by Esthree Enterprises for repairing the machine for Rs. 700/-. For the foregoing reasons this Forum finds that the opposite parties are liable for their unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1000/- towards compensation. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as costs. Time for compliance two months, failing which 12% interest will be paid till the realization of the amount.<br /> <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 /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 474/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> PW1 - Surendran<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Copy of Certificate of Warranty.<br /> P2 - Bill dated 18.04.2003 issued by Delta Tech for Rs. 12500/- <br /> P3 - Service/Repair bill dated 28.08.2003 issued by Tripple Aar Tele Traders for Rs. 700/-.<br /> P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 26.05.2004.<br /> P5 - Returned advocate notice.<br /> P6 - Postal receipts Nos. 2548, 2549 and 2550 dated 26/05.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />