Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/225/2020

Prakash P Kurup - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pittappilli Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

           SRI.VIJU.V.R                       : MEMBER

                                                  

CC.NO.225/2020 (Filed on : 03/11/2020)

ORDER DATED : 24/04/2023

COMPLAINANT

Prakash.P.Kurup,

3A Block B,

Heera Grand Villa,

D.P.I.Junction,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695014

(Party in person)

                                                                   VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Pittappillil Agencies,

Kulathungal Towers,

Vellayambalam Square,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695010

(By Adv.Tomy Louis)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.

3. The case of the complainant in short is that on 25/11/2017 the complainant purchased a vaccum cleaner “Forbes Wet & Dry DX” by paying Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) from the opposite party. Two years extended warranty was also obtained by the complainant by paying additional charges. As there was a problem for the motor of the vaccum cleaner, on 04/07/2020 the complainant brought the product to the opposite party and the same was repaired and given back to the complainant. On 24/10/2020 the product again became defective and as the defect was within the additional warranty period, the complainant demanded for a new piece of product. But the opposite party instead of providing a new one promised to repair the product. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances.

3.The opposite party filed written version contending that the warranty period provided to a vaccum cleaner by the company is only for one year and by collecting Rs.423.73/- (Rupees four hundred twenty three and seventy three paisa only), the opposite party is providing an extended warranty for a further period of two years. As per the terms, if any defect occurred during the one year warranty period, the technician from the manufacturing company will provide service and repair the same free of cost. If the defect was so extensive and if the same is beyond repair, then only within the warranty period of one year the product will be replaced with a new one by the manufacturer. Regarding the extended warranty period, which is provided by the dealer / opposite party the same was only for repair. However, in the extended warranty there is no promise to provide a new product as the extended warranty was provided only by the dealer and not by the manufacturer. According to the opposite party, when the complainant approached this opposite party with a complaint on 04/07/2020, the motor worth Rs.3365/- (Rupees three thousand three hundred and sixty five only) was replaced with a new one without collecting any charge as the defect was occurred during the original warranty period. Again on 24/04/2020, it was reported that another motor of the product is also having complaint. The opposite party offers to repair the product without collecting any charge from the complainant. But the complainant was not ready for repair and insisting for a new product which is not contemplated under the terms of the extended warranty. Hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  Heard both sides. Perused records, affidavit and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.P1 was marked. Though the opposite party filed written version, they failed to file affidavit or documents to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. Though the opposite party contended that during the extended warranty period the opposite party is liable to repair the product and there is no obligation on the part of the opposite party, who is the dealer to replace the product with a new one. To substantiate this contention, the opposite party failed to produce the terms of the extended warranty or filed any affidavit regarding those aspects. Mere filing a written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant, by the opposite party cannot be accepted as the evidence to disprove the claim made by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant also not produced any piece of evidence to substantiate his contention that during the extended warranty period he is entitled for replacement of the product. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and marking Ext.P1, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case partly against the opposite party. In view of the above discussions and in the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence of the complainant, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in part.

                In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to rectify the defects of the product within one month from the date of receipt of this order without collecting any charges from the complainant and make the product working condition provided the complainant bring the product to the opposite party’s service centre within the said period. If the complainant produced the product before the opposite party on a later date, the opposite party will get one month’s time from the date of bringing the product by the complainant to the service centre of the opposite party. The opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance.  

         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 Commission, this the 24^th day of April 2023.

 

                                                                                               Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                        Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.225/20

List of witness for the complainant

PW1            - Prakash.P.Kurup

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1         - Copy of invoice

List of witness for the opposite party – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                               PRESIDENT