BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 257/2009 Filed on 30.09.2009 Dated : 15.02.2010 Complainant: George Thomas. P, Christina, Ambalathunada, Mukkolakkal P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-44.
Opposite parties : Teltron Electronics Development Society, Reg. No. T-455, Near Benz Automobiles, Panavila, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-1. Vijayakumar-District Manager Harikumar-Secretary Prakash-Technician
This O.P having been heard on 18.01.2010, the Forum on 15.02.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER The complainant in this case purchased a power protector and a surge protector from the opposite party on 07.04.2009 and 05.05.2009 respectively. A few days after the installation of the surge protector, it was found defective and was not getting supply in two of the phases. Complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not turn up to cure the defect. As days passed, a burning smell began to come from the surge. So the plastic material was burning and there might be a short circuit. Immediately the complainant contacted the office of the opposite party and its technician. But there was no response from the side of opposite parties. The same night it burst into flame with a loud explosion and the walls were blackened. The complainant reported the matter in person to the Secretary, who sent the technician, who took away the burnt surge. Thereafter the opposite parties did not take any proceedings to replace the burnt surge. The complainant further alleges that the opposite parties ignore all the pleas of the customer and their interest is only to sell their product to dozens of people all over Kerala. They must be penalised for their lapses and strict instruction must be given to do after sale service promptly and efficiently. The complainant in this case filed proof affidavit in lieu of evidence and he has produced 2 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 and P2. The opposite party in this case accepted notice issued from this Forum, but they did not come forward to contest the case and did not file version and hence they were set ex-parte. Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- To prove the contentions of the complainant the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has filed 2 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 & P2. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands uncontroverted and unchallenged in the absence of cross examination. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the order form of Lightning Power Protector(Surge protector) issued by the opposite party, Teltron dated 05.05.2009. As per this document the price of the Surge Protector is Rs. 15,015/-. Ext. P2 is the Guarantee and Service Card. As per this document the opposite parties assure 1 year replacement guarantee. The defects occurred within the warranty period. The complainant has pleaded that, the defective surge has been taken by the opposite parties. As such the defective equipment is with the opposite parties. Since the said equipment is with the opposite parties and as the complainant was not in possession of the defective equipment, the procedure under 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act could not be followed. The same position has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MRF Ltd. Vs. Jagadish Lal reported in 1999(4) SC 315. Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the Surge Protector. But in this case the opposite parties denied the repeated requests and demands of the complainant to rectify the defects of the Surge Protector which was in a dangerous condition. Due to the insufficient service of the opposite parties the complainant suffered huge loss and sufferings. It is the duty of the opposite party to give prompt after sale service to the customers. From the above said discussions we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded to prove his case beyond doubt. Hence the complaint is allowed. In the result, the 1st opposite party, Teltron Electronics Development Society is directed to replace a brand new surge protector and the literature of the same must be supplied. The 1st opposite party shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss and shall pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs of the proceedings. This Forum direct the opposite parties that they should respond to the customer's call without delay and inspect or repair the instrument whenever necessary. It is the duty of the dealers to give after sale service promptly and efficiently to the customers. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the above said amount. 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 15th day of February 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER jb
C.C. No. 257/2009 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of the order form of lightning power protector. P2 - Photocopy of Guarantee and Service Card.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
| 
