SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant, Sr.Ancilla is the Principal of Sacred Heart English Medium Higher Secondary School, Moolamattom. The opposite party is the Director of Pacific Power Control Equipment Private Limited, Ernakulam who is dealing in U.P.S. For the purpose of working the computer in the school the complainant contacted the opposite party. The complainant purchased a 3 KVA one line UPS by giving a 2 KWA UPS worth Rs.15,000/- and Rs.35,000/- on ready cash. The UPS was supplied by the opposite party on 6.08.2005 and installed the same in the school. Warranty for one year also was given. The opposite party was promised 3 year guarantee for battery. After one week the UPS became functionless. The fact was intimated to the opposite party. But he did not care either to repair the UPS or to replace the same with a good one. The complainant was believing the words of the opposite party that the UPS could be made serviceable. But the opposite party could not perform the UPS as agreed upon. Because of the non-functioning of the UPS and computer, the working of the school lab has been adversely affected. The complainant was not able to conduct practicals for the students of Standard 1 to 10 and I.T practical examination. The complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party. But no reply was given by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to the opposite party to take back the UPS in question and to refund the amount collected plus the price of 2 KVA UPS exchanged Rs.15,000/- or to replace the 3 KVA with new one along with compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was served to the opposite party, but no written version was filed by the opposite party. Opposite party was called exparte.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has given evidence as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1(a) is the quotation issued by the opposite party. The terms and conditions of the quotation is that one year guarantee for UPS and 3 years for batteries and assuring their best services at all times. After giving this offer the UPS became faulty and not worked within a week. It is the case of the complainant that she made several attempts to alert the offered. After all the complainant is running a school. For the computer lab, the UPS with proper working capacity is absolutely necessary. Ext.P4 is a copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not give any reply or sent any technicians. From this it is evident that the UPS supplied by the opposite party has some manufacturing defect or it is a second hand reconditioned product. So there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they are bound to satisfy the complainant with the offer made by them failing which they are bound to repay the cash price Rs.35,000/- plus the price of 2 KVA UPS exchanged Rs.15,000/- collected from the complainant after taking back the UPS in question. The complainant has stated that, <br /> because of the non-functioning of the UPS properly, considerable amount of inconveniences and hardships are caused. It may be probable also. But in the circumstances of the case, we do not propose to award any general damages except to order costs to the complainant which we would limit to Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,500/- by way of compensation.<br /> <br /> In the result, the petition is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.1,500/- as costs and Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days and to take back the UPS in question, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008<br />