KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.429/12

JUDGMENT DATED : 22.12.2012

PRESENT:-

SMT. A. RADHA                                :    MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR    :    JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT

M/s. 4 Wheels Car, N.H. Kottakal,

Parambilangadi, (P.O), Kottakal,

Edarikkode, Malappuram District.

                (Rep. by Sri. Adv.Abdul Shukkur, Arakkal)

                            Vs

RESPONDENT

Shylaja

W/o. Devadas K.T.

Residing at Krishnalayam, Venniyoor Post,

Malappuram District  Pin. 676 508

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA   :  MEMBER

The opposite parties preferred this appeal against the order passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in C.C. No. 237.2010.

2.  It is the case of the complainant that she approached the first opposite party, the dealer of vehicle accessories. They are having the business of car security system and working in the name and style of Autocop (India) Pvt. Ltd. having office at Kochin and various parts of Kerala.  The complainant approached the opposite party on 24.12.2009 to install power window and also to arrange car security system in her Maruthi Alto Car.  After installation the opposite party  handed over owner’s manual. After a few days the power window system became defunct and the matter was informed  to the first opposite party.  Even after informing the first opposite party they were not turned out to attend the defects.  Therefore the complainant contacted the second opposite party and when the service engineers of the second opposite party inspected the vehicle, It is reported that the power window installed was not of the second opposite party and the second opposite party also refused to attend the power window security system of the car.  It is the definite case of the complainant that  she requested the first opposite party to install the Autocop (India) Pvt. Ltd ‘s security system which was defrauded by the first opposite party.  The act of the first opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and filed the complaint to get installed a defect- free power window security system of Autocop Ltd  and also for compensation of Rs. 50,000/-

          3.  The first opposite party filed version contending that they had not installed power window or arranged car security system to the complainant’s car.  It is admitted that one man with a Maruthi  Alto car bearing registration No. KL 55-E 5739 approached the opposite party to install center lock system of the lowest rate.  The opposite party admitted that they installed center lock system of the lowest rate of Rs. 2,300/- without warranty and to have the technical know how of the operating system they handed over the owner’s manual to the complainant.  It is also stated that the owner’s manual does not carry any warranty to the center locking system installed by the first opposite party.  It also does not contain the name and address of the opposite party nor the registration number of the vehicle.  It is also stated that the first opposite party rendered the service of the engineer of Alto car.  It is also stated that when the engineer came he was mislead by showing the power window of the vehicle and told him about the  complaint.  According to the first opposite party there is the complaint for center locking system and not for the power window.  The complainant with an ulterior motive to extract money from the first opposite party filed this complaint.  The quotation produced by the complainant is a fabricated one.  It is  stated that along with power window a center locking system was also installed by the first opposite party.  The document produced by the complainant shows that it is only a quotation and not an invoice.  It is also contended that there is no responsibility to install power window security system of Alto car for the 1^st opposite party. 

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A4.  The opposite party filed affidavit and Ext. B1 was marked in evidence.  No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party. The Forum below on going through the evidence and documents allowed the complaint.  The second opposite party was deleted from the party array before the Forum below. 

          5.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1^st opposite party is not liable to install defect free Autocop Power Window and to pay compensation. The appellant had not installed the power warranty system or the center locking System.  He also submitted that the alleged vehicle was brought by a person for installation of  the Center Locking System at the lowest rate.  It is also argued that the low quality Central Locking System was without warranty. The respondent offered  a lower rate without the warranty and in order to operate the system the appellant provided owner’s manual which does not have the warranty. It is also pointed out that the owner’s  manual does not have the name or details of the vehicle.  The service Engineer of the second opposite party inspected the vehicle and power window system and informed that the power window installed was not of the second opposite party.  It is also argued that the documents produced by the complainant clearly shows that the opposite party had not given any warranty for the central locking system.  The quotation produced by the complainant is a fabricated one.  In the quotation it is shown as Power Window one year warranty D.V.D Pioneer one year warranty, a speaker etc.  This is a fabricated document and  is merely a quotation.  No separate cash bill or invoice produced by the respondent.  The Forum below came to the conclusion that the signature in A1 and A2 are one and the same and found against the 1^st opposite party.

          6.  Though notice was issued the respondent was absent.

          7. On hearing the appellant’s side and on going through the documents in evidence we found that the complainant approached the first opposite party to install the power window and to arrange car security system to her Alto car.  It is in evidence that the owner’s manual of Alto car was produced by the complainant.  As per the warranty issued by the first opposite party the alto car security system was installed and it is also admitted that they were issued with the owner’s manual for operating the system easily.  It is also admitted by the first opposite party. They have installed the center security system of lowest rate which costs Rs. 2,300/-.   Though the complainant produced a quotation for Power Window System and the warranty card she failed to produce the invoice or any bill pertaining to the installation of power window system and the Center Security System.  It is also admitted by the first opposite party that they installed low quality system without warranty.  It is also in evidence from the pleadings in the complaint that the second opposite party was absolved as a security system used in the car was not of the second opposite party. From this we have to infer the security system installed was of low quality without any warranty.  The respondent/complainant failed to prove as she had paid for the Power Warranty System or Center Security System to the first opposite party. In the absence of evidence, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant/first opposite party.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the Forum below.

          The office is directed to send a copy of order along with  L.C.R. to the Forum Below.

                                                   A. RADHA       :   MEMBER

                         K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL   MEMBER

st