BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 307/2009 Filed on 10.11.2009

Dated : 30.09.2010

Complainant:

Lalsree. S, Secretary, College Society, LBSITW, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite party :

M/s Supriya Agencies, Ravel’s Building, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. John Lawrence)

This O.P having been heard on 30.08.2010, the Forum on 30.09.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

This complaint has been filed by the Secretary of LBSITW, Poojappura alleging as follows: The juicer mixer purchased for LBS Institute on 11.11.2008 from the opposite party frequently showed defects within a short time of its purchase. The mixer had a warranty for one year and hence the same was given to the opposite party for guarantee repair along with the guarantee card on 03.06.2009. Inspite of repeated requests, the opposite party was reluctant to return the repaired juicer. On 14.10.2009 when the complainant visited the shop, the opposite party forced them to accept the repaired juicer without the guarantee card which indicate the authorised repair certificate. Since the repair work was not undertaken by the service centre, the juicer was not accepted and they demanded the guarantee card. The opposite party refused complainant’s demand and compelled to accept the juicer which they had locally repaired without guarantee card. Hence this complaint for getting a new juicer or refund of the cost of the juicer along with compensation and costs.

The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The purchase of the juicer mixer in dispute is admitted. While the complainant purchased the equipment, the complainant was fully satisfied with the functioning of the equipment before leaving the counter. At the time of sale, the opposite party specifically told the complainant that no water particle should be allowed to enter into the equipment. On expiry of 6 months, the complainant came to the showroom and complained that the equipment was not functioning properly. When the opposite party demanded to produce the guarantee card, the complainant replied that it was lost. Even then, as a gesture of goodwill, the opposite party opened the equipment for repair. It was found that water particles entered into the equipment and this was the sole reason for the non-functioning. The opposite party reminded the complainant that the non-functioning was due to the said reason. The opposite party agreed to do the repair work and informed the complainant. Even without the production of guarantee card, the opposite party was generous enough to repair the equipment. The complainant came and made an uncommon demand to replace the equipment and refused to take back the equipment already repaired. As a business firm, it is impossible to replace equipments once sold every now and then. This is the sorry state of affairs. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 & P2. Opposite party had no evidence.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the Sujatha mixer, in dispute, by the complainant. The opposite party has contended in their version that at the time of purchase of the juicer, the complainant was fully satisfied with the functioning of the equipment before leaving the counter. There is no point in saying that at the time of delivery, the complainant was satisfied of the perfect condition of the juicer. It is only after putting the same into regular use that the defects come out one by one and such defects cannot be understood at the time of purchase. At the time of purchase, the complainant will be impressed with the looks of the machine and satisfied about the good looks prima facie, he will take away the machine, but the defects come only after considerable use. The complainant has pleaded that the said juicer had a guarantee for a period of one year and since the juicer became defective within short span of time from the date of purchase, the same was given for repair under guarantee on 03.06.2009 along with guarantee card. But the opposite party has taken out a contention that the complainant had not produced the guarantee card at the time of entrustment of the juicer for repair and they had accepted the same without the guarantee card as a gesture of goodwill. The complainant had argued that there is no mentioning regarding ’without guarantee card’ in Ext. P2. Furthermore during cross examination PW1, the complainant, had deposed that നിങ്ങള്‍ guarantee card കളഞ്ഞു എന്ന് പറയുന്നു(Q) ശരിയല്ല, അങ്ങനെ കളഞ്ഞു എങ്കില്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ എടുക്കില്ലായിരുന്നല്ലോ (A) At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note the date of purchase of juicer which is 11.11.2008 and the date of entrustment of the juicer to the opposite party which is 05.06.2009. From the above it could be seen that the machine has been given for repair within 7 months of its purchase. It is very hard to believe that, the opposite party had accepted and repaired the same without getting the guarantee card. Furthermore, the opposite party has contended that they had informed the complainant at the time of sale that no water particles should be allowed to enter into the equipment. This contention also we find it very strange as the very purpose of the juicer is to extract juice and how can one expect such juicer to be free from water particles as contended above. Besides this, the opposite party has further contended that the complainant had refused to take back the equipment already repaired. But the complainant pleads that the opposite party had compelled them to accept the juicer locally repaired without the guarantee card. From the above, it could be concluded that, the opposite party had accepted the same with guarantee card and the same has not been returned to the complainant. In the above circumstance, the opposite party is liable to repair the juicer in dispute to the full satisfaction of the complainant and shall give a fresh guarantee for a period of one year from the date of delivery and shall also pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall repair the juicer in dispute to the full satisfaction of the complainant and shall give a fresh guarantee for a period of one year from the date of delivery along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the opposite party shall refund Rs. 3,200/- with 9% interest from 11.11.2008 till realization along with the compensation and costs referred above.

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.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of September 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 307/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :

PW1 - Lalsree. S

II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of tax invoice dated 11.11.2008

P2 - Copy of Service Receipt dated 05.06.2009

III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb