D.O.F. 12.04.2010 D.O.O. 02.11.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 C.C.No.107/2010 M.V. Rajan, S/o. Kannan, Kalyani House, Vengara, P.O. Vengara, Kannur : Complainant (Rep. by Adv. C. Krishnan) Pradeepan, Manager, Souther Electronics & Security System, : Opposite parties Lotus building, 2nd floor, A.V.K. Nair Road, Thalasseri. (Rep. by Adv. V.K. Dayanandan) O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 85000 including the cost of alarm system with compensation and cost of the proceedings. The case of the complainant is that he is the Managing Partner of Zum-Zum Jewellery and the opposite party is the manufacturer of alarm system and he used to manufacture the alarm system and installed as per the order by the parties. Accordingly the complainant had purchased two alarm system from the opposite party to the two shops of the complainant at Pazhayangadi and Payyannur. The opposite party had provided two remote controller to the system which was bought for payyannur and only one remote controller for Pazhayangadi and had not given the guarantee card for this. The opposite party had installed the two alarm system and at the time of installation he had showed the functioning of the alarm and functioned it. But on the same night, it was not functioned when the complainant had started to function the alarm and the same was informed to the opposite party and he had repaired the system at Pazhayangadi branch and the same was started disfunctioning after two days. But the opposite party had insulted the complainant when he had went to the shop of the opposite party for repairing the system. The system was bought for an amount of ` 30,000 with one year guarantee. But the complainant was not able to function the same even for one day. So the complainant had suffered so much of mental as well as physical and financial hardships. All these were caused due to the deficient service of opposite party and hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite party had appeared and filed his version. Later on he was absent and he was called absent and set exparte. The opposite party admits that he had installed the security alarm system to the complainant’s shop. The opposite party contented that after 11/2 months of installation of the system the complainant informed the opposite party that the speaker was not functioning and hence a technician had visited to rectify the defect immediately. But at that time the speaker was found missing and the opposite party had installed the speaker without collecting any charge. The opposite party had removed the entire system as the complainant requested the opposite party to remove the entire system since the complainant is intended to wind up the Jewellery. Moreover the bill itself is a guarantee and hence there is no need of issuing separate guarantee for the system and the opposite party had installed the system successfully without any room for the complaint. The complainant had not made any complaint either in writing or orally to the opposite party till filing of this complaint and he after winding up requested the complainant to take back the system and refund the amount and the same was not acceptable to the opposite party as he cannot sell the system used for about 7 months to another and hence there is enemity to the opposite party. It is not correct to say that the opposite party had insulted and scolded the complainant. So the complaint is devoid of merits and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 and A2. The complainant has filed chief affidavit in accordance with his pleadings. Ext.A1 is the cash bill dated 18.07.2009 and Ext.A2 is the cash bill dated 17.07.2009 for ` 15,000 each. The admission of the opposite party along with Ext.A1 and A2 proves the case of the complainant that he had purchase two security alarm system by giving an amount of ` 15,000 each. The complainant contented that both the system was disfunctioning on the first day itself and opposite party had repaired only one alarm and after two days this alarm also has the fate of the other one. Eventhough opposite party had filed version by stating that they had repaired the alarm and the entire system was removed as per the request of the complainant since he is winding up the establishment and the system was kept in the complainant’s show room, the opposite party had not turned up before the forum to prove this contention. This itself is the negligence on the part of the opposite party. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party in repairing the alarm. There is no contra evidence before us. So the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant by refunding the purchase price of the alarm i.e. ` 3000 along with ` 1000 as compensation and cost of this proceedings and order passed accordingly. In the result the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to refund ` 30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) the purchase value of alarm system along with ` 1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is directed to return the alarm system in the event of such payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1 & A2. Bills dated 18.07.2009 & 17.07.2009. Exhibits for the opposite parties Nil Exhibits for the Court Nil Witness examined for either side Nil Witness examined for Court Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
