D.o.F:11/1/2013
D.o.O:31/01/2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.8/13
Dated this, the 31st day of January 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
1.Karthyayini Amma, W/o LateNarayanan Nair,
Rep . by her daughter in law Rajani,
2.Mohanan Nambiar.M, S/0 Narayanan Nair (late) : Complainants
Both are R/at Aishwarya,Mannippady ,RD Nagar Po,
Madhur, Kasaragod.
(Adv.M.Balakrishnan Nambiar)
1.The Proprietor,H.K.Communications,
Sharma Electronics(Sales & Services)
SVVC Complex, Karandakkad Junction,
Kasaragod.
2.H.K.Communications, rep by the Manager,
Hassankutty, Vinverth Lights, Opp.Mosque, : Opposite Parties
Rly Station Road, Kasaragod.
3. The Manager, Jupiter Electronics Service Centre,
Jupiter Tower, Palarivattom ,Kochin.
(Adv.Philip.T.Varghese for OP.3)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
Shorn of all averments the case of the complainant is that she purchased an emergency light for Rs.3000/- from Ist opposite party on 5/6/09. 2nd opposite party is the nearest service centre and 3rd opposite party is the authorised sales cum service manufacturer. Ist opposite party assured that the device is free from all sorts of manufacturing defects and is having 7 years warranty. After few weeks of purchase the product showed malfunctioning . The complainant approached Ist opposite party but he asked the complainant to approach 3rd opposite party. Again in the year 2010 complainant entrusted the device to 3rd opposite party after 2 months it is returned without repair when it is questioned by the complainant , he was asked to deliver the system to the service technician coming to Kasaragod. Complainant again entrusted the device to 3rd opposite party complainant waited till the return of the light and he went to the shop it is found closed. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Ist opposite party filed version admitting the sale of the product of 3rd opposite party at the time of sale it was in good condition. After satisfying with the product complainant purchased it. Ist opposite party has collected any amount other than the cost of the product at the time of sale. Service of the product has done by 3rd opposite party in which Ist opposite party has no involment. He has not acted contrary to the terms of warranty. This opposite party is unaware of collection of any amount by 3rd opposite party. According to 3rd opposite party there is no consumer relationship between complainant and 3rd opposite party. The products in question are not manufactured by 3rd opposite party nor sold by 3rd opposite party. Complainant has availed service from 3rd opposite party and has only collected the actual charges due for the service rendered . 3rd opposite party is the authorised centre appointed by the manufacturer. The product in question is manufactured outside India. Any customer having complaints about the Vinverth Emergency light can entrust the product to the 3rd opposite party for repairs. If repair is done during the warranty period neither cost of materials nor the labour charges are collected by 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party has tie up with M/s Jupiter couriers which has their collection centre and delivery centers in various towns and cities. M/s Jupiter couriers collect defective equipments intended to be repaired by 3rd opposite party. The claim of the complainant regarding the purchase price etc are not known to 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party denied the allegation that the complainant entrusted the product to the 3rd opposite party for repair in 2010. But the admitted date of entrustment for repair is on 12/3/2011. On 9/10/2012 also OP.NO.3 received the product for repair, on inspection it is found that the tube and battery of the product were not functioning. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 3rd opposite party. The allegation of the complainant that emergency light is sub standard and is defectively manufactured cannot be true. Compensation claimed is highly excessive and malicious. The complaint may dismiss with costs.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit .Ext A1 to A6 marked. Complainants counsel represented that they have no oral evidence. Eventhough opposite parties counsel prayed time for evidence lastly informed that they have no oral evidence. Complainant filed argument notes. Ext.A1 is the warranty card of Vinverth Emergency light in the first page of which it is written as 7 years warranty. Date of purchase of emergency light is 5/6/09. So the warranty period ends in 2016. There are two signatures in the first page of Ext.A1. one is on the top of that page and another is after 7 years warranty the term is affirmed by a signature. We are of the view that it is written bonafidely. So all opposite parties are bound to repair the device. 3rd opposite party has filed another explanation in which it is stated that they are only franchise of Jupiter couriers they are neither the representatives of Vinverth emergency light nor their service centre. They received the product on 17/11/2012 and delivered the same on 19/11/12. Hence please remove them from respondents arrary. The Forum is not in a position to accept this prayer since there is no manufacturer. 3rd Opposite party had a contention that there is no consumer relationship between him and complainant. Ext.A2 is sufficient to establish consumer relationship between complainant and 3 rd opposite party. The Forum is not in a position to accept the explanation as they already filed version and there are contradiction in version and explanation . 3rd opposite party in version submits that they are the authorised centre appointed by the manufacturer, then who is the manufacturer. While going through the version and documents produced by the complainant we are of the view that the case of the complainant tallies with their documents. If 3rd opposite party is not the manufacturer it is their duty to point out the manufacturer . Even though opposite parties took time for evidence they did not utilize the same. If they have a genuine case, certainly they would have prefer evidence and hearing properly.
4. The complainant died pending the case. Her legal heir is impleaded as the complainant as per IA 297/13 dtd.13/12/13. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the loss and agony sustained to the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.3000/- with Rs. 2000/- as compensation and 2000/- as cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Exts:
A1-warranty card
A2-cash receipt
A3-lawyer notice
A4&A5-postal acknowledgment
A6-return envelop with AD
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
