BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 26/03/2011

Date of Order : 29/07/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 187/2011

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows :

On 03-12-2010, the complainant approached the opposite party and placed an order for a Clock by paying an advance amount of Rs. 1,000/-. On 06/12/2010, the opposite party delivered the clock to the complainant at his residence. The complainant paid the balance price of Rs. 4,400/- to the opposite party. On 08-12-2010, the clock became defunct. After repeated intimations on 15-12-2010, the opposite party replaced the defective clock with another one. The 2^nd clock as well became mal-functioning on 17-12-2010. Though the technician of the opposite party attended to the complaint of the clock, he could not repair the same. Thereafter, the complainant directly approached the opposite party to get his grievances redressed, but to no avail. Though the complainant caused to issue a registered notice, the same was returned unserved for the reasons not mentioned. Again on 26-02-2011 the complainant caused to issue another letter, but there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the price of the clock together with compensation of Rs. 1,500/-. Hence this complainant.

2. In spite of service of notice from this Forum, the opposite party has not cared to attend to the proceedings. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.

3. The points that arose for consideration are :

i) Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund

of the price of the disputed clock?

ii) Compensation , if any?

4. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Allured by the tall claims of the opposite party, the complainant had purchased a clock from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 4,400/- on 03-12-2010. According to the complainant, the clock stopped ticking on the very next day and the opposite party replaced the same on 15-12-2010 and the replaced one also showed no better results on account of non-functioning. Though the complainant has approached the opposite party and sent Exts. A4 and A5 notices but to which the opposite party failed to pay any attention towards the lawful demand of the complainant. Evidently, the above conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on his part. The opposite party ought to have serviced the defects of the clock as agreed by him in Ext. A2 warranty card on which he failed. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get either replacement of the clock or refund of the price. The Hon’ble National Commission in Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal (IV (2007) CPJ 294 (NC), held that a frustrated consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget. In the above circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the clock from the opposite party. The complainant has been put to unnecessary hardships for no fault of his own though brought up but declined. Compensation is called for squarely.

5. As an afterthought, it is pertinent to note that how a manufacturer of such status as one herein can turn a deaf ear to the call of a legal Forum which if perpetuated would set a bad example.

6. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall refund the price of the clock together with compensation of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant. In that event, the complainant shall return the defective clock to the opposite party simultaneously.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of July 2011.