BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 224/2003 Filed on 03.06.2003

Dated : 28.02.2009

Complainant:

Camilla Jean 1, Palakkal House, Kilikolloor, Kollam-4.

(By adv. Pachalloor B. Rajaraman Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Suma Hearing Aid, Catholic Centre Shopping Complex, Room No. 7, Statue Road, General Hospital Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By adv. Dileep Sathyan)

2. The Manager, Siemens Hearing Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Unit # 14, Innovator, 7^th Floor, International Tech Park, White Field Road, Bangalore – 560 066.

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 07.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.01.2009, the Forum on 28.02.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Facts of the case are as follows: On 16.07.2002 the complainant purchased a hearing aid Siemens(BTE) VIVA 703 AE Serial No. 548545 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party, from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 14,500/-. The equipment was having a warranty for one year and if any defect arises during this period the opposite parties are liable to repair or service the instrument free of cost. After few days the instrument was not functioning properly. On 02.12.2002 the complainant handed over the hearing aid to the 1^st opposite party for repairing. The instrument was returned after rectification, but it was not functioning properly. The fact was again informed to the 1^st opposite party but they did not turn up to repair it. And also the complainant alleges that the opposite parties charged from the complainant more than its real value. On 24.04.2003 the complainant sent lawyer's notice to the opposite party. But they did not respond it. Hence the complaint.

The 1^st opposite party in this case filed version contending the allegations levelled against them. The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte. The 1^st opposite party contended that the allegation that after few days of the purchase of the instrument it was not functioning properly is not true. The complainant purchased the hearing aid on 16.07.2002 and till 02.12.2002, the date of first complaint before the 1^st opposite party, even according to the complainant, the instrument was working properly during that period. They further stated the defect was due to the mishandling of the instrument by the complainant herself for which the opposite parties are not liable. The opposite party also stated that the complainant never approached the 1^st opposite party after receiving back the rectified hearing aid on 02.12.2002. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

In this case the complainant and 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit. From the side of complainant 4 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. The 1^st opposite party produced 6 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D6.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not rectify the defects properly and after the repair the hearing aid was not functioning properly. The complainant argued that she had informed the matter to the opposite parties, but they did not turn up to rectify the defects. The 1^st opposite party stated that on 14.02.2003 the complainant accepted the repaired instrument with full satisfaction and thereafter till 24.04.2003 the complainant never approached the opposite party with any complaint. The complainant did not produce any document before this Forum to prove the statement that she had approached the opposite party several times after 14.02.2003 till the date of lawyer's notice. On 24.04.2003 the complainant sent advocate notice (Ext. P4) to the opposite party and the opposite party sent reply notice (Ext. D5) and the reply notice was accepted by the opposite party's counsel on 23.05.2003 (Ext. D6). Through that notice the opposite party informed the complainant that the 1^st opposite party is ready to repair the hearing aid free of cost. The complainant filed the petition before this Forum on 03.06.2003 i.e; after accepting the reply notice. Hence we find that there is no service deficiency from the side of 1^st opposite party. The other allegation against the opposite party is that the opposite parties charged more than its real price from the complainant. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that allegation. From the documents and evidences adduced by both parties, we find that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party already submitted that they are ready and willing to rectify the defects. The defect has occurred during warranty period. Hence this Forum allows the complaint partly.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects on the hearing aid free of cost since the defect has occurred within the warranty period. No costs.

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 day of 28^th February 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 224/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of cash bill No. 282 dated 16.07.2002 for Rs. 29900/-.

P2 - Photocopy of warranty card of Siemens hearing instrument of Model VIVA 703 AE Sl. No. 548545 purchased on 16.07.2002.

P3 - Copy of receipt No. 100 dated 02.12.2002.

P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 24.04.2003 issued to the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

DW1 - Jayakumari

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Audiogram of complainant dated 15.07.2002.

D2 - Booklet of Siemens hearing instrument with instruction for use.

D3 - Bill Book

D4 - Retail price list of Siemens hearing instrument.

D5 - Reply notice issued by opposite party.

D6 - Acknowledgement card.

PRESIDENT