D.O.F. 25.05.2011
D.O.O. 30.11.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011.
C.C.No.166/2011
Prasad,
S/o. Gopalan,
Gopal Sankar, : Complainant
Alavil P.O.,
Kannur – 670 008.
(Rep. by Adv. M.A. Venugopal)
(1) The Manager,
Madathil Marketing Company,
Madathil Buildings, Keezhoor P.O.,
Thalayolaparamba, Kottayam Dist. : Opposite parties
(2) Administrative Officer,
Madathil Marketing Company,
Administrative Office,
Door No. 28/1263,
Nr. N.S.S. Karayogam,
A.P. Vallon Road, Kadavanthara,
Cochin-20.
O R D E R
Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of ` 50,000 for the defective service rendered by them.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : On 24.03.2011, complainant purchased one solar inverter 300VA as per bill No.94 from 1st opposite party. At the time of purchase 1st opposite party assured the complainant that the inverter is having high quality with warranty of one year. But the inverter developed snags and stopped functioning within 15 days of its installation. Then complainant contacted the 1st opposite party and intimated about the defect of inverter set. The 1st opposite party promised to this complainant that the set will be repaired or replace the same if necessary. But the 1st opposite party had not taken any further steps to solve the defect of the inverter. Afterwards complainant was asked to contact the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that inverter supplied for complainant is having some basic technical defects and as such defects cannot be cured. The 2nd opposite party demanded the complainant to pay an additional amount ` 2000 for replacing the defective 300 VA by a 800 VA inverter. Believing the 2nd opposite party on 06.10.10 complainant again paid ` 2000 to the 2nd opposite party’s bank account No. 043900730000138 through South Indian Bank, Kannur. Evenafter receiving the amount 2nd opposite party failed to replace the defective set with a 800 A inverter to the complainant. So complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 25.04.2011 demanding either to deliver 800 VA inverter or to pay ` 25,000 being the amount paid by the complainant. 1st opposite party received the notice on 28.04.11 but they did not respond to the notice. The 2nd opposite party refused to accept the notice. The opposite parties are supplied defective inverter 300 VA to the complainant. Moreover they obtained an additional amount of 2000 promising to supply an inverter of 800 VA to the complainant. So the above complaint is filed against opposite parties claiming compensation of ` 25,000 to the complainant.
Eventhough opposite parties received notice regarding the complainant they have not appeared or filed their version. Subsequently they called absent and set exparte.
On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A5 marked.
Issue No.1 to 3 :
The complainant adduced evidence in tune with his complaint, Ext.A1 goes to show that complainant purchased one Anu solar inverter 300 VA set on 24.05.10 from the opposite party by paying a total amount of ` 20,380. Within 15 days of its installation itself the solar inverter developed snags and stopped function. Eventhough the complainant intimated about the defect of solar inverter to the 1st opposite party, he had not taken any steps to rectify the defect of the solar inverter set or replace the same. Thereafter the complainant contacted with 2nd opposite party as per the direction of 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to change the defective set with a solar inverter of 800 VA by paying an additional amount of ` 2000. Believing the words of 2nd opposite party complainant paid ` 2000 on 06.10.10 to the bank account of 2nd opposite party through South Indian Bank, Kannur Branch. Ext.A2 receipt supports the said claim of the complainant. But thereafter also 2nd opposite party neglected to deliver solar inverter of 800 VA to the complainant. Hence on 25.04.2011 complainant caused to issue Ext.A3, lawyer notice to the opposite parties directing them to replace the defective inverter set 300 VA with the promised one of 800 VA or to pay ` 25000 towards cost and compensation with in 10 days of the receipt of notice. The 1st opposite party received the notice on 28.04.10 and the notice to 2nd opposite party was returned unserved stating reason ‘insufficient address’. Subsequently there was a compromise suggestion from the opposite party and on 29.07.11 the opposite parties refunded ` 2000 additional amount collected by them to the complainant and though the opposite parties repaired the inverter set the same was not functioning properly. Hence the above complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to pay a total sum of ` 50,000 for the deficiency of service caused to the complainant. Eventhough notice were duly served upon the opposite party from the Forum they were not cared to appear and filed version if any.
From the evidence it is clear that the complainant purchased one 300 VA solar inverter set from the opposite party on 24.05.2010 by paying 20,380. The fact solar inverter set is defective is not disputed by the opposite party. From the version of the complainant it is clear that opposite parties tried their level best to repair the defect of the inverter. But the same was failed. Since the inverter set is having manufacturing defect there was a duty cast upon the opposite party to replace the same but even after getting the lawyer notice and notice from the Forum they remained silent. The above act of opposite party definitely amounts deficiency of service. Since the attempt made by the opposite party for repairing the inverter set was failed there is no meaning in asking the opposite party to do the same again. Hence opposite parties are liable to refund `20,380 the value of the inverter set after taking back the components in the possession of the complainant. Opposite parties are directed to pay `1000 as compensation and cost of the proceedings and the issues are answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay ` 20,380 (Rupees Twenty thousand three hundred and eighty only) the value of the inverter set together with `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant with in one month from the date of receipt of this order. It is further clarified that the complainant is liable to hand over all the components of the defective inverter set to the opposite party if demanded. If the opposite party failed to comply the order complainant is entitled to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Bill for ` 20,380 dated 24.05.2010.
A2. Counterfoil of pay in slip of South Indian Bank, Kannur.
A3. Copy of the lawyer notice dated 25.04.2011.
A4. Acknowledgment card.
A5. Refused legal notice by 2nd OP.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
Q
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
