By Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This complaint is filed by Kunjumon, Mundakkal Veedu, Pulpally P.O, Wayanad against Sijo, Gulf Bazar, Pulpally (P.O) whose address was later corrected as per order in IA 559/2023 dated 18.08.2023 as Shijo, Phone Shoppe, Kollathingal Tower, Near Bus Stand, Pulpally P.O, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
2. The Complainant states that he had purchased a Trimmer with Model No. MR6018 having serial No.14001804202000500 on 22.06.2022 made by Mr. Light company, from the shop of Opposite Party for Rs.1,300/-. It is stated by the Complainant that at the time of purchase the Opposite Party said that there is no shop bill for the product and had given a guarantee card for one year. The Complainant states that the Trimmer became defective on the 1st use itself and the Complainant states that the Opposite Party had returned the set after 10- 15 days saying that the defect is cured when the same was given for repairing. The Complainant states that the trimmer became defective seven times there after and the service charges were taken by the Opposite Party even during the warranty period. The Complainant states that the trimmer is now with the Opposite Party and had not yet been returned or replaced with a new one even though the Complainant had requested for replacement of trimmer or to return the price. The Complainant alleges that the attitude of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and loss to the Complainant and hence prayed for compensation for the same.
3. Even though notice was issued to the Opposite Party, he had not turned up and filed version in time and hence the Opposite Party is set exparte. When the case was posted for exparte evidence the Opposite Party appeared in person and requested for chance for contesting the case. Since the prayer could not be granted by the Commission, a chance was given to settle the issue which was also turned futile.
4. Thereafter proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the Complainant.
5. Ext.A1 is the warranty card of model No.MR 6018 with serial No.14601804202000500 issued to the Complainant by Sharjah Gulf Bazar Pulpally. Ext.A2 is the user manual of Mr. Light Rechargeable 10 in one grooming kit. Ext.A3 is the original bill dated 17.03.2023 of Mr. Care Centre Private Ltd., showing the produce name as 6018 front cover regarding payment of Rs.170/-.
6. Following points are to be analysed by the Commission to derive in to an inference in the matter.
- Whether the Complainant had sustained any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2) If proved,compensation and costs to be awarded in this case.
7. The Commission had made a very thorough examination of the
Complaint, perused the affidavit and the evidence from the side of the Complainant.
8. In the instant case, the specific case of the Complainant is that the product purchased by him was defective from the very beginning and Ext.A3 shows that, charges were received from the Complainant even during the warranty period mentioned in Ext.A1. On the other hand Opposite Party had not come forward to show that the averments of the Complainant are wrong and even the chance of settlement was also not utilized.
9. On going through the entire records and evidence the Commission found that the Complainant had proved his case on merit, repairing charges are also seen received by the Opposite Party from the Complainant during the warranty period which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the recurring defect of the instrument is due to manufacturing defect. Hence it is found that point No.1 is proved by the Complainant.
10. Since point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant, the following orders are passed.
- The Opposite Party is directed either to replace the defective trimmer with a new one or to refund the price of the set ie Rs.1,300/- (Rupees One thousand Three hundred only) to the Complainant.
- The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.
- The Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards the costs of the proceedings.
Needless to say that the orders are to be complied with within one month of
receipt of the copy of this order other wise the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the money portion except the amount awarded as costs.
Hence C C is allowed with the above observations.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of November 2023.
Date of filing:19.05.2023.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Dissented
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Kunjimon. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Warranty card.
A2. User Manual.
A3. Tax Invoice.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Dissented
Dissenting Order
By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:-
This complaint is preferred under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief, as narrated by the Complainant:- The Complainant on 22.06.2022, purchased a Trimmer from the Opposite Party, manufactured by Mr. Light Company. The Opposite Party had not issued any shop bill but had issued a warranty card covering one year’s warranty. On the instance of the first use itself, the Trimmer became defective and after repairing, it was handed over by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, 10-15 days later. He also charged repair charges during warranty period. But, subsequently the Trimmer became defective continuously for seven more times after its first repair by the Opposite Party, even during warranty period. The Trimmer is now with Opposite Party which has not yet been returned repaired nor replaced it. This amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party which has caused mental agony and loss to the Complainant. Hence this complaint with prayer to get compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
3. Notice for appearance was served upon the Opposite Party but he did not appear and file version before the Commission and hence the Opposite Party was set ex-parte.
4. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from his side. Ext.A1 is the Warranty Card issued by the Opposite Party in respect of the Trimmer, Ext.A2 is the user manual of the product and Ext.A3 is the original bill issued by Mr. Care Centre Private Ltd., showing payment of Rs.170/-. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and the complaint was heard on 31.10.2023.
5. On the basis of the complaint, documents marked, evidence adduced, arguments of the Complainant and the facts and circumstances of the case, I raised the following points for consideration.
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party?
- If so, what shall be the relief to be awarded?
6. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had
purchased a Trimmer amounting to Rs.1,300/- from the Opposite Party on 22.06.2022 having one year warranty. Though bill was not issued by the Opposite Party for the purchase of the Trimmer by the Complainant, Ext.A1 warranty card was issued which reveals that the product was purchased by the Complainant. Ext.A2 user manual was also issued in respect of the product and the allegation of the Complainant is that on the first use itself of the Trimmer, it became defective, and it became defective for a total of about seven more times. At the first time, the Opposite Party gave it repaired to the Complainant. But subsequently, he did not gave it repaired nor replaced the defective Trimmer, inspite of repeated demands.
7. On a thorough analysis of the issue, the following points are revealed.
- The Complainant had purchased the Trimmer from the Opposite Party (Evident from Ext.A1 and A2 issued by the Opposite Party).
- The Trimmer had became defective as stated by the Complainant, continuously, which is not objected by the Opposite Party as the Opposite Party was ex-parte.
- The Opposite Party had the opportunity and was at liberty to appear before this Commission and contest his case. But he did not appear and hence I have no other option than to accept the allegations of the Complainant. Non providing of proper after sale service for a defective product during warranty period is deficiency in service from the part of seller/service provider. So, there has been deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party.
8. Point No.2:- As point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party, he is liable
to compensate the Complainant. But it is inevitable to consider the following facts also for awarding relief as prayed for.
- The Complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in respect of the trimmer.
- The Complainant has not prayed for repair or replacement of the defective Trimmer, in the complaint.
- Complainant has not prayed for payment of cost of the complaint, in the complaint.
- The Complainant has prayed only for compensation of Rs.25,000/- but, the amount of compensation claimed for is seen highly exorbitant. In my opinion an amount of Rs.7,300/- (Rupees Seven thousand Three hundred only) for compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, monetary loss etc is seen reasonable and sufficient to grant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to
pay Rs.7,300/- (Rupees Seven thousand Three hundred only) to the Complainant as compensation for deficiency in service, monetary loss and mental agony within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me
and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of November 2023.
Date of filing:19.05.2023.
PRESIDENT : Different opinion.
MEMBER : Different opinion.
MEMBER : Sd/-
Since in the dissenting order no majority opinion, the majority decision order will prevail.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRC, WAYANAD.
