SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEM,BER.

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

          The complaint is filed for getting a new defect free inverter and battery without any default or  otherwise getting refund of the price of  the inverter and battery Rs.24,750/- and for compensation Rs.20,000/- along with  cost.

          The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a  Hyper grid 1 K.V. inverter and hundred AH Power Extubular batter on 31..11..2006 for the price of Rs.24,750/-   3 years replacement warranty was given for the inverter by the 1^st  opp.party including  6 months additional warranty  offered by the opp.party.  The inverter found faulty from the very beginning itself.   Even though it was repaired so many times the defect could not be cured.   Subsequently on 19..8..09 the inverter and batteries were returned to the opp.party for replacement with a new defect free inverter.   The complainant sent  an Advocate notice on 30..9..2000.  Even  after  the receipt of the legal notice, the opp.party has not made any attempt to replace the battery or to give its price Rs.24,750/-.  The opp.parties sold the inverter to the complainant with the clean knowledge that it was a defective one.  For the last two years the battery was under the custody of the opp.party.

          The complainant engaged this case to an advocate who is practicing at Ernakulam.  He had filed a complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam including office of the opp.party at Ernakulam also as a party.  Subsequently the Ernakulam office was closed.   As there is no territorial jurisdiction  for the Ernakulam District Forum to entertain the complaint,  the same was dismissed with direction to file complaint before the proper  Forum.

          The act of opp.party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.   Cause of action arised from 30..1..06 the date of purchase of inverter and from 19..8..2009 the date in which the complainant had returned the inverter to the opp.party and from 23^rd December 2010,  the date which CDRF, Ernakulam directed the complainant to file complaint before the proper Forum.  The  deficient act of opp.parties resulted in heavy loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

Even though sufficient opp.party has been given,  the opp.party remained absent and  hence set exparte.

The complainant filed affidavit.  PW.1 examined Exts P1 to P8 marked

The points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties?

2. Compensation and costs.

THE POINTS 1 AND 2.

As  the opp.party remained absent, we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant.  On a detailed verification of the entire documents before us, we find that there is deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties. The points found accordingly

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to return the price of Inverter Rs.24,750/- to the complainant along with compensation Rs.2500/- and cost  Rs.1000/-

          The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of this order.

            Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2012.

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant: NIL

List of documents for the complainant

P1. –Bill and cash receipt

P2. – Warranty card

P3. – Brousher

P4. – Inverter’s warranty card

P5. – Advocate notice

P6. – Postal receipt

P7. – Copy of complaint

P8. – Order of the CDRF., Ernakulam