CC Filed on 18.12.2007<br /> Disposed on 21.05.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated 21.05.2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.296/2007<br /> <br /> Sri. M.A.Chandrashekar,<br /> S/o Late Aswathnarayanasetty,<br /> R/o Sri Balaji Tele Links,<br /> Opp: Govt. Girls Hostel,<br /> Mulbagal. Complainant <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. M.P.Narayanaswamy)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Propreirtor,<br /> Sri. Vinayaka Systems & <br /> Telecommunication,<br /> Near Sharada Talkies,<br /> Big Bazaar,<br /> Kolar.<br /> 2. Manufacturer,<br /> Prime Telelink Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> F-76m road 5C, VKI Area,<br /> Jaipur – 302 013. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> (By Advocate ) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the cost of PCO Monitor and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- with costs and interest etc.,<br /> <br /> CC No.296/2007<br /> 2. The material facts alleged in the complaint may be stated as fallows: The complainant was running a STD Telephone Booth. He purchased PCO Monitor PRIME-44A an instrument used for monitoring out going STD / ISD / Local calls made on a telephone line, for Rs.4,000/- on 09.03.2007 from OP-1. This instrument was working up to 18.07.2007 and thereafter it stopped functioning. It was covered with guarantee for six months against defects in material and workmanship. The instrument was taken to OP-1 for repair during the warranty period. The OP-1 received the instrument on 19.07.2007 and told the complainant to come after a week. However he did not take any steps to repair it inspite of repeated visits to his shop and finally told the complainant to approach OP-2 for the remedy. It is alleged that OP-1 was the authorized dealer and OP-2 was the manufacturer of the said instrument. He also alleged that he sustained loss of Rs.100/- per day as he could not run STD Booth without the help this instrument. Therefore he filed the complaint on 18.12.2007. <br /> <br /> 3. OP-1 was served with notice and he remained absent and he did not file any version. OP-2 sent his version through post. The defense of OP-2 may be stated as fallows: All the products manufactured by the company carry an operating manual along with the product. All the points relating to warranty are explained in detail in the end of the manual. According to this, Consumer has to fill the purchase record form (enclosed in the operating manual) & send it to company within 30 days of purchase. After this, he can get the product free repaired/replaced under the warranty conditions. He has to bring the machine to the company service centre. Company is bound to repair / replace the product under the warranty rules only if the product is brought to the <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.296/2007<br /> company service centre. He further contended that in the present case the copy of the purchase record stamped and signed by dealer and complainant was not sent to him within 30 days as prescribed in the terms and conditions of the warrantee and that no complaint was preferred before him regarding the non working of the instrument in question. He also contended that the manufacturer being a reputed company in this field is very much willing to offer the complainant the warranty benefit. Therefore OP-2 requested to dismiss the complaint against him. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit and documents in support of his case. OP-2 has not personally appeared and has not filed any affidavit or document. We heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service by any of the OPs?<br /> 2) If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which relief the <br /> Complainant is entitled to?<br /> 3) What order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the submissions of complainant and the records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: The complainant has produced operating manual relating to this instrument. This manual contains in the end the terms and conditions of warranty and also the blank form of purchase record to be filled up by dealer, which should be stamped and signed by dealer as well as customer. Admittedly in the present case copy of purchase record is left blank even now and it is not stamped or signed by the dealer. It is <br /> CC No.296/2007<br /> obvious that the copy of purchase record and the invoice / cash receipt for having purchased the instrument are not sent to manufacturer till this time. The original purchase record and the original invoice / receipt must be produced along with defective material for repair before authorized repairer as prescribed in the warrantee condition. Further it is also required that the material should be purchased from the authorized dealer. It appears these steps are taken to avoid spurious claims regarding the material not manufactured by the manufacturer. The purchase record should disclose the name of the dealer and also the serial number of main unit and other important parts. As the purchase record and copy of the invoice were not sent within 30 days from the date of purchase, OP-2 cannot be made liable to effect repairs free of cost or to replace the material. <br /> <br /> The records clearly established that the instrument in question was purchased from OP-1. It is doubtful whether OP-1 is an authorized dealer of this instrument or not. Further OP-1 has failed to fill up the particulars to be filled up in the blank purchase record and failed to stamp and sign this purchase record. This was the duty of OP-1. The cash receipt issued by OP-1 does not disclose that he was the authorized dealer of the instrument in question. He simply handed over operating manual which contained the blank purchase record, without taking any steps to fill it up and to send the copy of it to manufacturer. OP-1 has made to believe the complainant that the instrument is guaranteed for a period of six months against any defects and it would be repaired or replaced by the manufacturer free of cost within the period of guarantee. It is also established that OP-1 retained the instrument for some time to get it repaired but subsequently returned the defective instrument without effecting any repair. Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service by OP-1. Point No.1 is held accordingly. <br /> CC No.296/2007 <br /> Point No.2: The complainant submitted that he has already purchased another PCO Monitor for running his STD Booth, as the defective instrument was not repaired within reasonable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case OP-1 is to be ordered to return to the complainant the price paid by him to the instrument. Point No.2 is held accordingly. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No.1 with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party No.1 shall return Rs.4,000/- (Four Thousand only) to complainant within 30 days from the date of this order towards the price of PCO Monitor PRIME-44A. On payment of costs and return of price amount of Rs.4,000/- as ordered the complainant shall hand over the said PCO Monitor to OP-1. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 21st day of May 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />