IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2010.

Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.80/08

Between:

Abraham Varghese,

Chelikuzhiyil Villa,

V.I.P. Colony,

Challiakkara,

P.O. Maramon.

(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla)                                                                   .....       Complainant

And:

1. M/s. Inverter & UPS Super Market,

St. Peter’s Junction,

Kizhakkedom Towers,

Collectorate Road,

Pathananmthitta, rep. by its-

Manager.

(By Adv. Anil. I. George)

2. M/s. Sukam Power Systems Ltd.,

1961-C-Uyog Vihar, Phase No.6,

Section 37, Guragon – 122001,

Haryana, rep. by its-

Managing Director.                                                              .....       Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):

                        Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.

                        2. Facts of the case in brief is as follows:-  Complainant bought an inverter from 1^st opposite party on 7.7.07 by paying an amount of Rs.9,800/-.  1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party.  The said inverter failed to perform as warranted and it was replaced after one week of its purchase.  Even after replacement, the inverter developed manufacturing defects and repaired on 1.4.08.  Thereafter again developed defect and again taken back by the 1^st opposite party on 10.4.08.  It is found that it is beyond repair, due to various defects.  The inverter still remains with the 1^st opposite party.

                        3. Due to the manufacturing defect of the inverter, the said inverter while being switched on complainant suffered the following loss on 8.4.08.

            1.  29 inches T.V. burned                            :           Rs. 15,000/-

            2.  2 No. Ceiling Fans burned                    :           Rs.   3,000/-

                        Total loss of articles                         :           Rs. 18,000/-

            3. Value of inverter                                      :           Rs.   9,800/-

                                                                                                ========= 

                        4. Complainant sent notice to opposite parties either to replace the inverter or to pay the loss incurred to him.  But opposite parties had not replied so far.  It is a clear deficiency of service.  The opposite parties are responsible for the defects of the inverter and other losses due to the lack of quality of the equipment.  Hence this complaint for getting replacement of inverter with compensation and cost from opposite parties. 

                        5. 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  1^st opposite party admitted the purchase of the inverter by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party, 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer and supplier of warranty and 1^st opposite party is only a supplier.  Complaint of the inverter is not due to manufacturing defect but due to the lightening.  Therefore opposite parties are not liable.  Even then 2^nd opposite party repaired it free of cost.  Complainant is well aware that the defect of inverter is due to lightening but he willfully would not disclose it.

                        6. After repairing the inverter free of cost, complainant again came with defect.  1^st opposite party repaired it free of cost again.  When complainant came for collecting the inverter, he demanded solar inverter an instrument using solar panal for charging battery.  When 1^st opposite party refused, complainant left the inveter and returned.  The inverter is repaired free of cost having warranty and complainant can take back the same.  Complainant has also having knowledge about the electronics appliances.

                        7. 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  1^st opposite party has not caused any loss to the complainant.  Complainant bought the inverter only and the 1^st opposite party does not know which brand of battery is using by the complainant.  The damaged T.V and Fan were not produced before the Forum.  Therefore 1^st opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.  2^nd opposite party has not appeared.  Hence they were declared as exparte. 

                        8. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the relief sought for in the complaint is allowable ?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

             9. Evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him has been marked as Ext.A1 to A6.  On opposite parties side 1^st opposite party filed a proof affidavit and he had not adduced any other evidence.  After closure of evidence, complainant and 1^st opposite party were heard.

            10. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6.  Ext.A1 is the bill for Rs.9,800/- issued by the 1^st opposite party for the sale of the inverter.  Ext.A2 is the copy of notice issued to opposite parties.  Ext.A3 and A3(a) are the acknowledgment card of Ext.A2.  Ext.A4 and A4(a) are the postal receipts of Ext.A2.  Ext.A5 is the instruction manual of opposite parties.  Ext.A6 is the warranty card in Page No.10 of Ext.A5.

            11. In order to prove the 1^st opposite party’s contention, 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit.  Apart from proof affidavit he has not adduced any other evidence. 

            12. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  It is revealed that there is no dispute regarding the purchase of inverter by the complainant and the fault occurred during the tenure of warranty period.  According to the complainant the inverter became faulty within seven days after the purchase and 1^st opposite party replaced it by supplying another one.  Even the new one became faulty for three times and repaired free of cost by the 1^st opposite party.  But when it is connected and tested at complainant’s house, his T.V and two Ceiling Fans were burned thereby he had sustained a loss of Rs.18,000/-.  Therefore complainant states that the said fault of the inverter is due to manufacturing defect and it is not repairable.

            12. 1^st opposite party’s contention is that the fault of inverter is not due to manufacturing defect but due to the occurrence of lightening.  As per warranty condition opposite parties are not liable to repair the damage due to lightening.  Even then 1^st opposite party repaired it twice free of cost.  Due to the refusal of complainant’s demand for solar inverter, he left the repaired inverter in 1^st opposite party’s shop.  Complainant is not willing to take back the inverter even though it was repaired free of cost and kept in 1^st opposite party’s shop.

            13. On a perusal of Ext.A2 to A4(a) it is seen that opposite parties accepted the notice sent by the complainant.  But opposite parties had not turned out.  1^st opposite party raised his contention of lightening and the demand of solar inverter only after the filing of this complaint.  What prevented them to respond on Ext.A2 notice with the above contentions? 1^st opposite party failed to prove that the fault of the inverter is due to lightening even though the same was in his custody.  But the complainants claim that in his house lightening arrester is fitted to prevent lightening.  But the complainant had not adduced any evidence to prove that aspect.  Opposite party’s evidence does not revealed that 1^st opposite party had informed the complainant that the inverter was repaired and be taken back, which shows that there is no laches on the part of the complainant.  Moreover, there is no reason to disbelieves PW1’s deposition, which is as follows:- “ Inverter icnbm¡n h¨p AXv FSp¯psIm­p t]mIWsa¶v FXrI£nIÄ Ft¶mSp ]dªn«nÃ. Notice-\v adp]Snsbm¶pw FXrI£nIÄ X¶n«nÃ.  CSnaqeamWv inverter-\v tISp]mSpIÄ D­mbsX¶v FXrI£nIÄ Fs¶ Adnbn¨n«nÃ.  Fsâ ho«n Lightening arrester fit sNbvXn«p­v.  icnbm¡n sIm­ph¶ inverter ho«n sIm­ph¶v test sNbvXt¸mgmWv (10.4.08þÂ) T.V þbpw c­v ^m\pw \jvSs¸«Xv“.

            14. Apart from version and proof affidavit, 1^st opposite party has not adduced any documentary evidence either to prove their contention or to discredit the complainant’s case.  All the frustrated efforts made by the 1^st opposite party is only to escape from the liability of the fault of the inverter.  Supplying a faulty inverter to the complainant and the non-return of the repaired inverter is a clear deficiency of service.  Hence the complainant’s case stands proved partly.  Therefore, opposite parties are liable to compensate the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant.  The other claim for damages of T.V and Fan are not allowable in the absence of evidence.  Hence the complaint is allowed as follows:

1.      The 1^st opposite party is directed to return the purchase price of    

       Rs.9,800/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Eight hundred only) to the     

       complainant. 

2.      Complainant is allowed to realise Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand

only) as compensation and a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) from the 2^nd opposite party.

3.      The amount so ordered is to be paid by the 1^st opposite party within 

      one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the   

      complainant is allowed to realise the amounts with 10% interest per  

      annum from this date, till the realisation of the whole amount.  The 1^st 

      opposite party is at liberty to realise the cost of the inverter from the 

      2^nd opposite party if he desires so, since the 2^nd opposite party is the 

      manufacturer of the inverter.   

                        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 10^th day of March, 2010.

                                                                                                                               (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                        N. Premkumar,

                                                                                                                              (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                    :           (Sd/-)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)                  :           (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1    :  Abraham Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Bill dated 7.7.07 for Rs.9,800/- issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 

               complainant.

A2       :  Copy of advocate notice dated 13.5.08 sent by the complainant’s advocate to the 

               opposite parties.

A3 & A3(a)     :  Acknowledgment card of Ext.A2. 

A4 &A4(a)      :  Postal receipts of Ext.A2. 

A5       :           Instruction manual of opposite parties. 

A6       :           Warranty card in Page No.10 of Ext.A5.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                                                        (By Order)

                                                                                                               Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Abraham Varghese, Chelikuzhiyil Villa, V.I.P. Colony, Challiakkara,

                       P.O. Maramon.

(2)   Manager, M/s. Inverter & UPS Super Market, St. Peter’s Junction,

                        Kizhakkedom Towers, Collectorate Road, Pathananmthitta.

(3)   Managing Director, M/s. Sukam Power Systems Ltd., 1961-C-Uyog Vihar, Phase No.6, Section 37, Guragon – 122001, Haryana.

(4)   The Stock File.