BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No: 334/2006
Dated : 16..03..2009
Complainant:
M.M. Abdul Vahid, Regency, Karamoodu, Thonnakkal-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. P.S. Saji Kumar)
Opposite parties:
Shibu, Nediyathu House, Cheravally, Kayamkulam – 690 502.
George Varghese, George Wins Security Solutions, Devaswom Lane, M 7, Pattom Palace P.O., Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
(By Adv. P.A. Dev)
This O.P having been heard on 17..02..2009, the Forum on 16..03..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant had purchased one Pro-max Electronic security systems on 16/8/2004 from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.23,305/- including the installation and electrical items charge, which covered 5 years warranty, and the system had remote control. The said Electronic security system got damaged on July 2005 and it was intimated to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties repaired after 25 days from the date of complaint. The opposite parties replaced the said system with another one having no remote control with a condition to replace the same with old one after repairing or replace within a month. But the opposite parties did not respond even after repeated request. On 10/10/2006 onwards the pro-max electronic security system which the opposite parties have replaced earlier having no remote system became defunct. The complainant sent phonogram to the opposite parties about this matter. The 1st opposite party sent reply on 18/10/2006 intimating that within 10 days they will settle the complaint. The complainant waited for settlement from the date of receipt of the reply till the date of filing of this complaint. But there is no response from the side of opposite parties. 2. The opposite parties in this case remained ex-parte.
3. The complainant in this case produced paper publication against 1st opposite party. Inspite of paper publication the 1st opposite party never appeared before this forum. The 2nd opposite party accepted notice from this Forum and filed vakkalath, but thereafter they never appeared to contest the case.
4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 7 documents to prove his case.
5. Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : In this case the complainant has produced 7 documents to prove his case. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext.P1 is the invoice No.228 of George Wins Security Solutions dated 20/8/2004 for an amount of Rs.21,700/-. Ext.P2 is the invoice No.299 of George Wins Security Solutions dated 20/8/2004 for an amount of Rs. 1,605/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of warranty card dated 24/8/2004. This document shows that the pro-max security system has 5 years warranty. Ext.P4 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 1/7/2006. Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite parties. Ext.P6 is the copy of phonogram dated 10/10/2006 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties intimating that the system was not functioning. Ext.P7 is the copy of telegram sent by the opposite parties to the complainant informing that their staff will come to the house of the complainant within 10 days, with the system having remote control. But till the date of filing of this complaint, the opposite parties' staff did not come to the complainant's house with the system.
7. From these documents and pleadings of the complaint we have found that the case of the complainant is genuine and the complainant has succeeded to prove his case. The complainant purchased the pro-max electronic security system on 16/8/2004. As per the warranty card issued by the 2nd opposite party on 24/8/2004 (Ext.P3 warranty card), system has warranty for 5 years. The system got damaged on July 2005 ie.within the warranty period. The complainant immediately intimated the matter to the opposite parties, then the opposite parties replaced the system with another one having no remote control with a condition to replace the same with old one after repairing or replacement within a month. But the opposite parties did not do so till the date. The complainant's repeated demands and requests were denied by the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is allowed. After deducting the depreciation, the complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.18,500/- towards the price of the equipment. The complainant has incurred on expense of Rs.1,500/- towards paper publication and hence an amount of Rs.3,000/- is allowed towards costs of the proceedings along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/-and the opposite parties are found liable to pay the price of the security system with compensation.
In the result the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand and five hundred only) the price of the Pro-max Electronic System to the complainant and the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compenstion and also shall pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as costs. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the above said amounts till the date of realisation. After receipt of the entire amounts complainant shall return the Pro-max Electronic System to the opposite parties. 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 Forum, this the 16th day of March, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad. O.P.No.334/2006 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness : NIL Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of order form invoice No.228 dt. 20/8/2004 for Rs.21,700/- P2 : " No.229 dt. 20/8/2004 P3 : Copy of registration of warranty system P4 : " letter dated 1/7/2006 issued to the complainant P5 : Photocopy of acknowledgment card dt. 5/7/06 P6 : Copy of Telegram message dt. 10/10/2000 P7 : Copy of Telegram dt. 18/10/2006
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No: 334/2006
Dated : 16..03..2009
Complainant:
M.M. Abdul Vahid, Regency, Karamoodu, Thonnakkal-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. P.S. Saji Kumar)
Opposite parties:
Shibu, Nediyathu House, Cheravally, Kayamkulam – 690 502.
George Varghese, George Wins Security Solutions, Devaswom Lane, M 7, Pattom Palace P.O., Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
(By Adv. P.A. Dev)
This O.P having been heard on 17..02..2009, the Forum on 16..03..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant had purchased one Pro-max Electronic security systems on 16/8/2004 from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.23,305/- including the installation and electrical items charge, which covered 5 years warranty, and the system had remote control. The said Electronic security system got damaged on July 2005 and it was intimated to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties repaired after 25 days from the date of complaint. The opposite parties replaced the said system with another one having no remote control with a condition to replace the same with old one after repairing or replace within a month. But the opposite parties did not respond even after repeated request. On 10/10/2006 onwards the pro-max electronic security system which the opposite parties have replaced earlier having no remote system became defunct. The complainant sent phonogram to the opposite parties about this matter. The 1st opposite party sent reply on 18/10/2006 intimating that within 10 days they will settle the complaint. The complainant waited for settlement from the date of receipt of the reply till the date of filing of this complaint. But there is no response from the side of opposite parties. 2. The opposite parties in this case remained ex-parte.
3. The complainant in this case produced paper publication against 1st opposite party. Inspite of paper publication the 1st opposite party never appeared before this forum. The 2nd opposite party accepted notice from this Forum and filed vakkalath, but thereafter they never appeared to contest the case.
4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 7 documents to prove his case.
5. Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : In this case the complainant has produced 7 documents to prove his case. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext.P1 is the invoice No.228 of George Wins Security Solutions dated 20/8/2004 for an amount of Rs.21,700/-. Ext.P2 is the invoice No.299 of George Wins Security Solutions dated 20/8/2004 for an amount of Rs. 1,605/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of warranty card dated 24/8/2004. This document shows that the pro-max security system has 5 years warranty. Ext.P4 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 1/7/2006. Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite parties. Ext.P6 is the copy of phonogram dated 10/10/2006 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties intimating that the system was not functioning. Ext.P7 is the copy of telegram sent by the opposite parties to the complainant informing that their staff will come to the house of the complainant within 10 days, with the system having remote control. But till the date of filing of this complaint, the opposite parties' staff did not come to the complainant's house with the system.
7. From these documents and pleadings of the complaint we have found that the case of the complainant is genuine and the complainant has succeeded to prove his case. The complainant purchased the pro-max electronic security system on 16/8/2004. As per the warranty card issued by the 2nd opposite party on 24/8/2004 (Ext.P3 warranty card), system has warranty for 5 years. The system got damaged on July 2005 ie.within the warranty period. The complainant immediately intimated the matter to the opposite parties, then the opposite parties replaced the system with another one having no remote control with a condition to replace the same with old one after repairing or replacement within a month. But the opposite parties did not do so till the date. The complainant's repeated demands and requests were denied by the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is allowed. After deducting the depreciation, the complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.18,500/- towards the price of the equipment. The complainant has incurred on expense of Rs.1,500/- towards paper publication and hence an amount of Rs.3,000/- is allowed towards costs of the proceedings along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/-and the opposite parties are found liable to pay the price of the security system with compensation.
In the result the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand and five hundred only) the price of the Pro-max Electronic System to the complainant and the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compenstion and also shall pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as costs. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the above said amounts till the date of realisation. After receipt of the entire amounts complainant shall return the Pro-max Electronic System to the opposite parties. 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 Forum, this the 16th day of March, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad. O.P.No.334/2006 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness : NIL Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of order form invoice No.228 dt. 20/8/2004 for Rs.21,700/- P2 : " No.229 dt. 20/8/2004 P3 : Copy of registration of warranty system P4 : " letter dated 1/7/2006 issued to the complainant P5 : Photocopy of acknowledgment card dt. 5/7/06 P6 : Copy of Telegram message dt. 10/10/2000 P7 : Copy of Telegram dt. 18/10/2006
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
