CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No.207/07
Monday the 28th day of February, 2011
Petitioner : Thomas Mathew
Proprietor,
Unique Enterprises, Thiruvalla.
(Adv. Thomas Rajan)
Vs.
Opposite party : Suresh Kumar,
Proprietor,
The Diamond National Company,
Thekkumgopuram, Kottayam.
(Adv. P.S. Navas)
2) The Manager,
M/s.Su Kam Communications System Ltd.,
Plot No.196 C,Udyog Vihar,
Phase IV.Sector 37,Gurugeon,
Harayana 122001.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant purchased one U.P.S model no.U.P.S.,DSP/01 bearing serial no.030206027 5 KWA with 40A from first opposite party at Kottayam for a consideration of Rs. 84,000/- vide bill no.1550 on 12-06-06. The complainant was given warranty card dtd 12-06-06 of opposite party no.2. The said U.P.S is for the complainant’s own use and the business conducted by him is only for the livelihood of the complainant. U.P.S is a device which stores electricity, 5 K.V and releases current in case of interruption of electric current to the computers for a standard period of 3 hours. So, whenever electric supply fails the system remain uninterrupted by sudden supply of electric current from the U.P.S. On 10-08-06 there was a power failure in the building of the complainant, then the U.P.S operated only for 10 minutes instead of 3 hours, the computers of the complainant suddenly stopped working affecting its internal mechanism. Similarly, there were three to four times of power failure and every time the U.P.S did not operate with uninterrupted power supply for more than 10 minutes. The first opposite party on examination of the U.P.S opined that the malfunctioning of batteries within the U.P.S is due to manufacturing defect. Thereupon the complainant contacted second opposite party, whose representative inspected the U.P.S and told that malfunctioning was due to some sort of abuse or misuse committed by the supplier, opposite party no.1. Standing in their respective premises of mutual accusation the opposite parties neglected to rectify the defect of the U.P.S thereby caused loss and damage to the purchaser who spent Rs.8000/- for the repair of his computers which went damaged due to the malfunctioning of the U.P.S. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of U.P.S or refund of purchase price Rs.84,000/-, expenses spent for repair of computers Rs.8000/-, and litigation cost.
Notice was served to first and second opposite parties. The second opposite party failed to enter appearance so they were set expartee. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.
i) This opposite party did not assure or promise the complainant that the siad U.P.S. purchased by the complainant will provide power supply for the continuous period of 3 hours.
ii) The representatives of the opposite party never said that malfunctioning of the batteries in the U.P.S is due to manufacturing defect.
iii) The allegation that the complainant spent Rs.8,000/- towards the repair of his computers and suffered loss due to the defect of UPS etc are false.
iv) The first opposite party is not a manufacturer of U.P.S and batteries and has provided maximum free services to the complainant.
v) to get 3 hrs backup time, as per the technical calculation the petitioner had to purchase 105 A.H. capacity tubular battery model, which cost Rs.125,000/-. In this case petitioner spent only Rs. 84,000/- for 40 A.H battery. This opposite party advised the complainant to purchase 100 A.H tubular battery for long back up. The warranty for the said 40 A.H battery is only 6 months and this petition is filed after warranty period.
vi) Though the defects and trouble of the U.P.S was only due to the lightening for the sake of consumer’s satisfaction, the first opposite party replaced the 8 batteries and circuit board without price. This opposite party is not responsible to the defect and trouble of UPS due to lightning.
vii) There is no deficiency in service from the part of first opposite party. The complainant has not suffered any loss or damages due to the service provided by the first opposite party.
Hence the first opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavit filed by both the parties and exhibits A1 to A4.
Point No.1
It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased one U.P.S on payment of Rs.86,000/- on 12-06-06. The original bill dtd 12-06-06 is produced and marked as Ext.A1. The original warranty card issued for the said UPS is also produced and marked as exhibit A2. The first opposite party averred that the warranty for 40 AH battery is only 6 months. But as per Ext.A2, warranty card, the warranty stands on all parts (except LCD/LED Switches and external body) for a period of 12 months. Nowhere in the Ext.A2 warranty card it is stated that warranty for battery or UPS is only for 6 months. The UPS was purchased on 12/6/06 and the complaint was filed on 4/6/07. So we find that the complaint was filed within the warranty period of 1 year itself.
The first opposite party next averred that the circuit board was got fired and 8 batteries were damaged due to lightening and that they replaced the 8 batteries and circuit board free of cost. Whereas the complainant contented that the first opposite party on their inspection of UPS had opined “the malfunctioning as a result of manufacturing defect”. Eventhough the first opposite party averred that all the defects were caused due to lightening, nothing is placed on record by them to prove the said averment.
The first opposite party elaborately explained the formula to find out the battery back of 105AH battery and found it to be 3.024 hours. The complainant’s case itself it that the UPS purchased by them is only having 10 minutes battery back up. The first opposite party failed to explain the battery back up provided by the 40 AH battery supplied by them to the complainant. The first opposite party has the bounden duty to answer whether the 40 AH battery supplied by them is having only 10 minutes backup or less than or greater than that.
Ordinarily a manufacturer or trader is required to sell or supply goods to the consumer free from any defect. In this instant case after receiving Rs.86,000/-, the opposite parties failed to provide a good quality UPS to the complainant. The malfunctioning of the UPS was brought to the notice of the manufacturer and trader during the warranty period itself. The office copy of advocate’s notice dtd 21/05/07 and acknowledgement card copy evidences that the alleged defects were brought to the opposite parties’ notice. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.
The first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally replace UPS or will refund the purchase price Rs.86,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation. The first and second opposite parties will also pay Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. After complying the order, the opposite parties can take back the UPS under dispute which is supplied by them.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant
Ext.A1-Original bill dated 12/06/06
Ext.A2-Original warranty card
Ext.A3-Office copy of advocates notice
Ext.A4-Copy of acknowledgement card
Documents of the opposite parties
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
