BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/05/2011

Date of Order : 31/07/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 255/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

On 19-08-2002, the opposite party installed a security system at the residence of the complainant. The opposite party had offered life time warranty for the same. On 06-12-2008, the opposite party replaced the control panel of the system. The new control panel with remote is giving trouble right from its installation. After 3 months of installation, the battery of the remote was replaced. In June 2009, the circuit board went out of order and was repaired only after 5 months. In October 2010, the unit again went out of order. Though the opposite party took the machine for its repairs, in spite of lapse of more than 7 months the system is not repaired or reinstalled. The security system was purchased for an amount of Rs. 10,800/-, the opposite party charged Rs. 8,500/- for the replaced control panel with remote. The replaced control panel is defective and the complainant could not use the same. The system suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. The same can be dropped by switching off the system from outside itself. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding to repair the machine. The opposite party replied stating untenable contentions. On 07-05-2011, the mechanic of the opposite party attended to the complaint with the system and demanded charges from the complainant. Since it was within the warranty, the complainant was not ready to pay the charges. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the replaced control panel together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :

The complainant is not the purchaser of the security device. As per the records with the opposite party, the security device under dispute was purchased by M/s. Maria Pharmaceuticals, Ernakulam. The present complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. On receiving the complaint, the opposite party replaced the control panel on 06-12-2011 on chargeable basis, since the guarantee given was for one year. In June 2009, the device was damaged due to lightning. For replacement of the circuit board, the complainant was asked to pay costs of the circuit board that is, Rs. 2,500/-. Thereafter, there was no response on the part of the complainant. There is absolutely no defect in the security control system. On receipt of the lawyer notice, the opposite party intimated the fact to the complainant. The opposite party is ready and willing to attend the service requirement provided the complainant bears the charges for the parts to be replaced.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the new control panel?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point Nos. i. & ii :- According to the complainant, the opposite party installed a security device at the residence of the complainant on 19-08-2002. The opposite party maintains that they have no connection with the complainant and in fact they have sold a security device to M/s. Maria Pharmaceuticals, Ernakulam. Indisputably, the complainant is the beneficiary of the security device and he has been using the same in his residence, moreover, a beneficiary is also a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. So, the contention of the complainant is only to be upheld that the complainant is a consumer.

6. Ext. A1 goes to show that the complainant purchased Camio Classic Model Converted to Standard Model with remote control at a total price of Rs. 8,500/- on 16-12-2008. Ext. A2 is the guarantee card for the same. The opposite party provided one year guarantee for the products as per Ext. A1 and provided life time warranty for the items supplied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party, on several occasions, the technician of the opposite party visited the residence of the complainant to repair the defects of the device, however, they could not reach at the destination. Further, the opposite party maintains that the complainant is liable to pay the costs of the repair to the complainant. We are not to agree with the contention of the opposite party, since the opposite party has provided life time warranty for the device. The opposite party contended that the device was damaged due to lightning. But nothing is on record to substantiate the same. During evidence, DW1 the witness for the opposite party admitted that they are ready to install the machine at the residence of the complainant. In the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get the device erected at his residence free of cost especially, since life time warranty has been provided by the opposite party. Though the opposite party has provided life time warranty, they have unnecessarily dragged the complainant to this Forum by rejecting the warranty terms as per Ext. A2. The above conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in their service which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings. We fix it at Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively.

7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :

1. The opposite party shall erect the security device at the residence of the complainant in working condition with warranty as per Ext. A2 free of costs.

2. The opposite party shall also pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- respectively to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of July 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========