By Smt. C.S.Sulekha Beevi. President
1. Complainant purchased a telephone form opposite party on 17.03.2011 by paying Rs.510/- As the line was out of order the telephone (instrument) could not be used in March and it could be used only on 4th of April. The next day itself the instrument showed defects. The dialing system was not working. On 11-04-2011 the instrument was taken to opposite parties who said that they will repair it after a week. Complainant inquired to the marketing office at Palakkad and was informed that if the phone is brought to Palakkad it will be repaired. The phone is still defective. Hence this complaint.
.
2. Opposite party filed version admitting the sale of the telephone to complainant. It is also admitted that complainant approached reporting defects to the dialing system. It is stated that the phone was repaired and given back to the complainant. But complainant insisted to get a new phone. That being a dealer opposite party in authorized only to repair the phone, and that cannot replace the product. Complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer (BPL Company) and there is non-joinder of necessary party. That the complaint is filed to harass opposite party.
.3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Ext. A1 and A2 marked for him. MO1 is the telephone instrument produced by complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit. No documents marked for opposite parties.
4. Complainant is aggrieved by the defect to the new phone purchased by him. The phone was purchased by the school (for use in the school) who is the complainant. The school was represented by authorized agent. Much effort was made to settle the case being a simple matter. Opposite party was not amenable to replace the phone contending that replacement has to be done by the manufacturer. We cannot agree with this contention. Dealers are also responsible for the defects to the products sold by them. The privily of contract with the consumer is with that of the dealer.
5. Ext. A2 is the warranty document which shows that the phone has one year warranty. Immediately after purchase the phone has become defective. Selling a substandard product and not attending properly to the defects reported and not replacing the product is unfair trade practice. Complainant has proved a case in his favor. Opposite party ought to have been more consumer sensitive to redress the grievance of the complainant immediately.
6. We hold that refund of the purchase price of Rs.510/-,along with compensation of Rs.500/- together with interest @12% per annum upon the above sum from date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs.500/- would serve the ends of justice. It will also serve to improve the attitude of a trader towards consumer.
In the result we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.1010/-(Rs.510/-+Rs.500/-) along with interest @12% per annum from date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs.500/- within one month form the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated, 6th day of March, 2012.
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A2
Ext.A1 : Warranty card dated 17-03-2011 issued by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A2 : Bill invoice dated, 17-03-2011 for Rs509.79/- from opposite party to
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
