O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu. M. Thomas, Member.
The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:
The petitioner purchased a 2 K.V 24 volt UPS having one year replacement guarantee from the opposite party on 5.11.08 for Rs.8496.73. The said UPS became non functioning four times. First three times the opposite party made some temporary repairing works and returned it back. On 19.8.09, the said UPS turned defective for the fourth time. The complainant took the UPS to the opposite party’s office and complained about the defects. The opposite party returned the said UPS on 19.9.09 saying that they have rectified the defects. The next day onwards the UPS showed the very same defects. The matter was again informed to the opposite party and they took the UPS for repairing. As the opposite party failed to rectify the defects, the complainant demanded for replacement. But the opposite party was not willing to replace. So the complainant issued Advocate’s notice. Instead of receipt of the advocate’s notice the opposite party has not replaced the UPS or issued a reply notice. Aggrieved by the said acts of the opposite party the complainant filed this complaint claiming the replacement of the UPS or refund of the purchase price along with litigation costs and compensation.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.
1) The UPS purchased by the complainant was an assembled one and it had no replacement guarantee or service guarantee. In normal case a “ 2 KV 24 Volt”, company branded UPS will cost Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. As complainant was not financially sound enough to buy such an expensive one, he opted for an assembled one.
2) In normal case an assembled UPS will work defect free at least for 5 years. Chance of developing complaints for an assembled UPS is very rare. The said UPS was not given one year replacement guarantee.
3) The allegations that the UPS became defective four times and the opposite party had not repaired the said defects are false.
4) Complainants regarding the said UPS was first received on 19/6/09. From 5/11/08 till 19/6/09 no other complaints were reported by the complainant.
5) Two servicemen from the opposite party examined the alleged UPS and found that the complainant was using the said UPS for functioning fans, motors and the other electrical equipments. The said matter was informed to the complainant and the consequences of such use were explained to the complainant.
6) A 600 i-ball UPS was given to the complainant for making his computer functioning as a temporary arrangement. But the complainant has not mentioned anything about the i-ball UPS. The UPS entrusted to the opposite party is repaired and the complainant is free to take back the UPS after giving back the i-ball UPS.
7) The said defects of the UPS were caused due to the misuse of the complainant and the opposite party is not liable for any replacement or refund of the purchase price.
Hence the 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 petitioner’s affidavit and Exts A1 to A4. Even though the opposite
party represented that counter affidavit is filed, no counter affidavit is seen on record.
Point No.1
The complainant purchased a 2 KV 24 Volt UPS from the opposite party on 5/11/088 for Rs.8496.73. Evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced the original bill dated 5.11.08 and it is marked as Ext.A1. On perusal of Ext.A1 it is seen that the complainant purchased the said UPS as first item of the Ext.A1 bill. Complainant averred that the UPS became defective four times and on the first three occasions the defects were rectified and on the 4th occasion the opposite party failed to repair the defects. So the complainant issued advocate’s notice dated 23/9/09. The said advocate’s notice copy is produced and it is marked as Ext.A2. Evidencing the receipt of the advocate’s notice, the complainant produced the postal receipt and acknowledgment card and they are marked asExt.A3 and Ext.A4 respectively. The complainant further alleged that even after receipt of the advocate’s notice the opposite party had not done anything to redress his grievance. It is significant to note that the opposite party failed to respond to the advocate’s notice. As the opposite party has not filed any counter affidavit the averments of the complainant remain unchallenged. From the facts and circumstances we find that the opposite party is deficient in their service. Even after receiving Rs.8496.73 for the UPS, the opposite party failed to provide a defect free UPS to the complainant. In our view the opposite party is liable to compensate the losses suffered by the complainant. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed.
The opposite party will replace the defective UPS with defect free, brand new UPS or will refund Rs.8496.73 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization along with a litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-. As contented by the opposite party if an i-ball UPS is with the complainant, opposite party has the liberty to take back the i-ball UPS on complying the order.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of December, 2010
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant.
Ext.A1-Original bill dted 5-11-08
Ext.A2-Copy of Advocate’s notice dtd 23/9/09
Ext.A3-Original postal receipt
Ext.A4-Original Acknowledgment card
Documents of the opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
