BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of October 2011
Filed on : 07/08/2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 648/2009
Between
P.U. Chacko, : Complainant
Pullekkatt house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court road,
Near KSRTC, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha.
And
1. M/s. Supra Electronics, : Opposite parties
Alappatt Building, (By Adv. R. Muraleedharan,
Market road, D.D.Angadi, 3rd floor, Convent Jn,
Near General Hospital, Market road, Kochi-11)
Kochi-682 011.
2. M/s. Lincon Power Private Ltd., (By Adv. K.P. Jose Pious
CASCIA, 57/1060, Amulya Street, Banerji road,
3rd floor, Iyyattil Junction, Cochin)
Chittoor road, Kochi-682 011.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a UPS system manufactured by the first opposite party from the 2nd opposite party on 05-13-2007 for Rs. 25,960/-. One year warranty was provided to the UPS system. While so on 01-09-2008, the UPS system went out of order and it was repaired by the 1st opposite party. After one month again it became defunct and the UPS was entrusted with the 1st opposite party for repairs. . They repaired it and collected Rs. 1,500/- towards repairing charges. Again after two weeks, the UPS system went out of order and it was taken for repairing by the 1st opposite party on 06-06-2009. The repairing was not carried out for a long time and ultimately the complainant sent a notice through his lawyer on 02-11-2009. Instead of settling the matter, they sent a reply to the effect that the damage was caused due to lightning and not serviceable. The UPS system is still with the first opposite party. The recurring defects of the UPS system is due to its manufacturing defect. The allegation of lightning as the cause of damage is absolutely false. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the UPS system i.e. Rs. 25,960/- along with interest. He is also entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for the hardships suffered due to the non-delivery of the UPS system entrusted for repairing. This complaint hence.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party.
The 1st opposite party does not manufacture or sell any UPS system and they are only service providers. In September 2008 the 1st opposite party attended to the complaint and serviced the system. In April 2009 the complaint reported by the complainant was repaired and service charges of Rs. 1,500/- was collected. Again after 2 months the complainant entrusted the system for repairs. On check-up it was found damaged due to lightning. The 1st opposite party offered to repair the system according to the availability of spare parts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. Defense of the 2nd opposite party.
The UPS system under dispute has not been manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Since the complainant himself alleged in the complaint that the damage was caused to the system only after the expiry of the warranty period and the damage was caused due to lightning, the 2nd opposite party is unnecessarily arrayed in the case.
4. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A3 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the complainant and the 1st opposite party respectively. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The points that arose for consideration are.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price
of the UPS system?
ii. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?
6. Points Nos. i. Ext. A1 tax invoice goes to show that on
05-12-2007 the complainant had purchased the UPS system from Line on Power Pvt. Ltd. at a price of Rs.25,960/-. Ext.A2 warranty card would show that one year warranty has been provided by the 2nd opposite party though vehemently disputed by them however without any evidence to the contrary. Ext. A3 is the service details of the UPS system. As per Ext. A3 the system was serviced on the following occasions.
Sl. No. | Date | Problem reported | Amount charged |
1 | 01-09-2008 | Not working | Nil |
2 | 17-04-2009 | Not working | Nil |
3 | 22-05-2009 | Not working | Rs.1,500 |
4 | 06-06-2009 | Not working | ---- |
7. Admittedly the 1st service was within the warranty period. However the consequent repairs go only to show that the gadget suffers from manufacturing defect because the recurrence of the defect although the opposite party has framed it as defect caused from lightning for which no evidence or proof is forthcoming. It is the settled position of law that the manufacturer is entitled to collect service charges beyond the warranty period for repair of the gadget. For what so ever reasons the manufacturer is liable to provide adequate service to the customer. The 2nd opposite party instead of attending to the grievances of the complainant consumer out rightly disowned their liability failing in their responsibility and calling of a service provider. The above conduct on the part of the 2nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. This forum can not by any stretch of imagination accede to the same. In the above circumstances the 2nd opposite party is legally and contractually liable to provide service to the complainant.
8. Point No. ii. Primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely, however uncontrovertedly the complainant had been put to unnecessary inconveniences causing him necessary monitory loss in lieu we allow a compensation of Rs. 2,500/-.
9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that
i. The 2nd opposite party shall repair the defects of the UPS system and deliver it to the complainant in working condition. If the 2nd opposite party is not in a position to repair and hand over the equipment in working condition for their own incapacity half the price of the UPS system shall be refunded taking into view that the complainant had used the said system for a period of 2 years before the arising of this complaint.
ii. The 2nd opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant for the reasons stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of October 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits
Ext. A1 : Copy of tax invoice
A2 : copy of one year product warranty
A3 : 3 series of estimated cost for repair
Opposite party’s exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Notice dt. 02-11-2009
B2 : Copy of letter dt. 30-11-2009
B3 : P.O.D copy
B4 : Copy of letter dt. 03-12-2009
