By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
-2-
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
He purchased an inverter and a battery on 27.06.2015 from the shop of first opposite party namely Dream solar Kalpetta. The first opposite party offered two years warranty to the inverter and battery and installed the inverter in the house of the complainant. On 16.12.2015, it shows a complaint and thereafter stopped it’s function. So, the complainant brought it to the shop of the first opposite party and it was repaired. But, when the inverter started it’s functioning again, within 10 minutes, the complainant felt a bad smell. Then the first opposite party came there and disconnected it. He promised to send the technician. Since, there was no response from the first opposite party, on 06.03.2016, the complainant brought the inverter and battery to the shop of the first opposite party. The first opposite party obtained the bill and warranty card of the inverter from the complainant. But, he reluctant to repair it stating flimsy reasons. Thereafter, on 21.03.2017, the complainant again contacted the first opposite party. But, the first opposite party threatened him with filthy language. Now, the complainant came to know that the first opposite party cheated him by giving substandard inverter. Hence this complaint to get Rs.18,000/- from the first
-3-
opposite party as the price of inverter and battery, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
3. Originally there was only one opposite party. Thereafter, as per the contention taken by first opposite party, the complainant impleaded the second opposite party.
4. The first opposite party filed version contenting as follows:- He admitted that he is running a shop namely Dream solar. But he denied that the complainant purchased an inverter and a battery from his shop on 27.06.2015. The complainant never purchased inverter or battery from his shop. The complainant purposefully did not mention the name of the company of the inverter and battery. He denied that due to complaint of the inverter, the complainant called the first opposite party and he repaired it. He further denied that the complainant again contacted the first opposite party due to another complaint and he did not repair the inverter. He denied that he has obtained the bill and warranty card of the inverter from the complainant and threatened him. The first opposite party is familiar with the complainant. The complainant is the owner of a shop namely
-4-
Calicut batteries and he used to get wires of the batteries on loan from the first opposite party. One day, he wants batteries on loan from the first opposite party. But, he was not ready to give batteries on loan. So, the complainant filed this complaint falsely. Hence there is no deficiency in service on first opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.
5. The second opposite party filed version contenting as follows:-
This opposite party did not sell any inverter or battery to the complainant. Even then, the complainant is trying to exhort money from this opposite party. This opposite party is the only power backup company in the country and a reputed manufacturer and dealer of Su-kam brand batteries and inverter. This opposite party is manufacturing international quality products and only after quality test, they are distributing those in the market. If there is any complaint on their products, there must be a registered complaint. As per the records of this opposite party, there is no registered complaint from the complainant. This opposite party came to know about the allegation of the complainant only when they received the summons from this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant has not filed any supporting documents to prove that the said inverter has any
-5-
manufacturing defect and not working properly. This opposite party is ready to inspect the inverter and also ready to replace it, if there is any manufacturing defect. This opposite party is not liable and responsible for anything if there is no manufacturing defect to the product.
6. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on opposite
parties. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get anything
as claimed?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
7. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, MO1 and MO2. There is no evidence from opposite parties. Heard both sides.
8. Point No.1:- The complainant alleged some complaint on his inverter which according to him, purchased from the first opposite party on 27.06.2015 for Rs.18,000/-. His grievance is that on 16.12.2016, it shows some complaint and even though, he satisfied the repairing work done by the first opposite party, within 10 minutes, it again showed complaint with a bad smell.
-6-
He alleged that it has two years warranty and even then, the first opposite party was not ready to repair the inverter. He specifically alleged that first opposite party obtained bill and warranty card of the inverter from him.
9. To prove the complainant’s case, he has given evidence as PW1. He has produced inverter and battery which are marked as MO1 and MO2. The complainant alleged that he purchased those from the shop of first opposite party. But, first opposite party denied that the complainant purchased those from his shop. It is pertinent to note that there are no documents to prove that the complainant purchased the inverter and battery from the first opposite party shop as alleged. Though the complainant alleged that the first opposite party has obtained the bill and warranty card from him, here there is no supporting oral or documentary evidence to prove that the first opposite party obtained those documents from him. The first opposite party made a case that the complainant asked batteries on loan from him and since, he was not ready to give batteries on loan, the complainant created this case falsely. Though, the complainant alleged that once the inverter was repaired by the first opposite party, there are no documents to show that it was repaired once by first opposite party. The case of
-7-
the complainant is that when the inverter shows the complaint again, the first opposite party did not repair it. Except the oral evidence of PW1, there are no oral or documentary evidence to prove that the first opposite party did not repair the inverter as alleged by the complainant. Therefore even though, the complainant came with a complaint against the opposite parties before this Forum, nothing in his possession to prove the allegation levelled against the first opposite party. Without any other supporting oral or documentary evidence, it is not safe to accept the testimony of PW1 who admittedly an interested party to blame upon first opposite party for the alleged deficiency. The second opposite party has no role, because, no evidence is here to prove that there is manufacturing defect to the inverter. Therefore, without any hesitation, I can sum up that the complainant miserably failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed, but without cost.
10. Point No.2:- Since, I found point No.1 against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
-8-
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of March 2020.
Date of Filing: 21.06.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. T. Shaji. Electrician.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
MO-1. Inverter.
MO-2. Battery.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
