DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 12th day of June 2020

Present   : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c)

                : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                      Date of Filing: 03/10/2018

CC No.123/2018

V. R. Pathmesh

S/o. V.P. Raghuvaradas,

Vettukad Veedu, Manjalur P.O,

Thenkurissi, Alathur,

Palakkad – 678 502

(By party in person only)

         The Manager,

G- Track, Missari, Thurakkal,

Kozhikode Road, Manjeri,

Malappuram - 673 638

(By Adv.Satheesh Kumar.C)

O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member (President I/c)

The facts of the case are briefly stated below:

             The complainant in 2012, January visited the exhibition stall existing then in Palakkad Fort Maidan and found a cook stove of G Track.  Since the opposite party agreed for home delivery, complainant booked the stove and on 03/03/2012 the opposite party delivered the stove at his house.  This stove worked for four years without any problem.  When the stove did not work it was informed to the company whose technician set it right, but on 05/06/2018 to work the stove technician came and Rs.150/- was given to repair the non working stove.  But within one month the stove again became non working and on 03/07/2018 Rs.250/- was paid to repair the same, but by 11/07/2018 the stove became again faulty when the technician came and examined the stove and informed that the board got damaged whose price is Rs.550/- which has three months warranty.  Since complainant told the technician before eight days Rs.250/- was paid by him, for Rs.350/-, the three months warranty having board was given to replace the existing damaged board, but after two days the same also got damaged, when the company was informed.  The complainant was informed by the company that the board cannot be remedied further by giving the old board and Rs.2,700/- new board was offered to the complainant.  When complainant asked the company to repair the board once more as there is warranty the company refused to do the same.  When the company again was contacted by the complainant, the company did not oblige.  Complainant further pleads that he is an ordinary farmer, due to flood his agriculture yield was poor and he has not the capacity to give this big amount and purchase this stove.  He also pleads that he has two daughters studying in 9^th standard and 4^th standard, by 8.00 am they have to go to school and because of non working of the stove mental agony was caused to the complainant and his family which also caused tension to them.  Hence complainant prays to this forum to order the opposite party to repair the stove and set it right and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant. 

The complaint was admitted and the opposite party was sent a notice to enter his appearance and file version.

In the version filed by the opposite party, the opposite party contends that except those admitted others are denied by this opposite party.  According to this opposite party, the statement in the first para of the complaint that in 2012 January from the exhibition stall in Palakkad Fort Maidan G Track’s cook stove (Induction cooker) was ordered and on 03/03/2012 the same was home delivered to the complainant is correct.  Warranty card was given to the complainant on the same day for this product - induction cooker serial number - CLTS 11111837, with one year warranty.  As per 2^nd para of the complaint that the subject induction cooker had worked without any problem for four years is clear from the complaint itself.  The rest of the statements in the complaint are denied by this opposite party.  The opposite party further contends that after the expiry of the warranty period charging for spare charge and service charge the products of the company were repaired.  For some of the replaced parts three months service warranty was given.  From 2016 to date complainant has registered complaint for this product seven times and during six times the company has serviced the product by going to the complainant’s house.  During the first service on 04/07/2017 mother board had complaint and the same was replaced for which as against its price of Rs.550/-, only Rs.150/- service charge was recovered from the complainant and for the mother board three months warranty was also given.  On 21/07/2017 when again complaint was told by the complainant, the mother board having the warranty was replaced.  Then on 31/05/2018, when complaint was told by the complainant 3^rd service was also given.  Then on 27/06/2018 when exhaust fan of induction cooker had complaint it was changed for which fan charge of Rs.100/- and service charge of Rs.150/- were recovered from the complainant.  Then after the expiry of warranty period of the mother board when the mother board became faulty/damaged the mother board was again replaced and from the price of the mother board of Rs.550/-, Rs.200/- discount was given without receiving service charge from the complainant.  Opposite party also contends that when the complainant told complaint about the mother board after the expiry of its warranty period, complainant was informed that it is better for him to exchange the product, as it has been used for about over six years; complainant was also told that it is difficult to service the electronic product and the electronic product will not get any more life.  Complainant was also informed that the above induction cooker will be exchanged for the price of Rs.2,700/-, new induction cooker will be given to the complainant for which besides one year warranty six months extra warranty will also be given to the complainant as assured by the opposite party company.  This opposite party company also contends that from its part no deficiency in service has occurred; even after the expiry of the warranty period after duly registering the complaint immediately services were given to the complainant by the opposite party company which is quite clear from the complaint.  Further for the above electronic product there is one year warranty from 2012 to 2013 after which for about five years the complainant has used the subject product.  For the electronic product no company can give life time guarantee as contended by this opposite party.  According to this opposite party Rs.25,000/- was claimed as compensation for mental agony, difficulties and sufferings.  By raising the unnecessary complaint against this opposite party, this opposite party has suffered difficulties, loss of prestige and expenses for which this opposite party prays to this Hon’ble Forum to order the complainant to give a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to this opposite party.   Hence this opposite party prays to this Hon’ble Forum to accept their contentions and dismiss the complaint with cost. 

            Complainant and opposite party filed their chief affidavits; Complainant was cross examined on 24/09/2019 as PW1 and Exts.A1, A2 series and A3 series were marked and the complainant was heard and the opposite party filed argument notes. 

            The following issues were considered in this case. 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, the relief and cost which the complainant is entitled to get?

Issues 1 & 2 in detail

                        Complainant has submitted Exts.A1, A2 series & A3 series to support his arguments.  Ext.A1 is original stove warranty card which shows that G Track product has warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the product.  It also shows its serial number, model number, date of purchase, dealer’s name and address, limitations of warranty etc.  Ext.A2 series are four receipts no’s Ext.A2 (a),A2 (b), A2 (c) & A2 (d) which are service reports issued by the opposite party which show job numbers, and dates of service, name of technician, service charges etc, which prove that the opposite party company has serviced the disputed product of the complainant when in complaint.  Ext.A3 series are four receipts issued by the opposite party no’s Ext.A3 (a), A3 (b), A3 (c) & A3 (d) which are service reports issued by the opposite party which show their dates, name of technician, date of service, amount of service charges etc, which also prove that the subject product of the complainant is repaired and serviced by the opposite party. 

                        After perusing the affidavits filed by both parties and the documentary evidences submitted by the complainant before this Forum, we observe that the product supplied by the opposite party to the complainant showed complaints occurred to the product several times and the opposite party is seen to have serviced and repaired the product of the complainant promptly.  We also observe that this G Track product is under warranty and the unit and components are warranted against the defective material and workmanship for a period of one year from the date of its purchase which is 03/03/2012.  It is also clear from Exts.A2 series and A3 series that the opposite party’s technician rendered prompt service to the product.  We also observe from the complainant’s deposition before this Forum during his cross examination as PW1 on 24/09/2019 as "Rm³ complaint sImSp¯t¸msgs¡ Øm]\¯n \n¶v sSIv\ojy³ h¶v complaint icnbm¡n X¶n«p­v.  hmdân ]ncobUv Ignªm GXv t{]mUIvän\pw complaint h¶m icnbm¡n In«m³ \nÝnX XpI kÀÆokv NmÀÖmbn I¼\n¡v sImSp¡Ww F¶ Imcyw F\n¡dnbmw.  A¯c¯nepÅ kÀÆokv NmÀÖpw, \nÝnX XpIbpw am{Xsa Fsâ I¿n \n¶pw hm§nbn«pÅq.  2013 amÀ¨v 2 hscbmWv Rm³ hm§nb t{]mUIvänsâ hmdân, BbXn\v tijhpw Cu Øm]\w F\n¡v bYmkabw kÀÆokv X¶n«p­v.  bYmkabw I¼\n t{]mUIvän\v kÀÆokv sImSp¯ncp¶p F¶v Ext.A2 series and A3 series BbXv sIm­vXs¶ sXfnbpw"".    From the above deposition it is quite clear that the complainant has admitted that product purchased by the complainant was given prompt service and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Also complainant has failed to produce evidence to show that he has incurred Rs.25,000/- financial loss and hardship for which he has prayed for this compensation from the opposite party.

            In the light of all the above we view that complainant has not been able to prove commission of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party in this case. 

            Therefore the complaint is dismissed. 

            Pronounced in the open court on this the 12^th day of June 2020.

                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                         V.P.Anantha Narayanan    

                   Member (President I/c)

                                                                                            Sd/-        

                                                                                                     Vidya.A

                                Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  -  Original stove warranty card of  G Track stove  sold to the complainant by the opposite

               party

Ext.A2 series   - Four receipts which are service reports issued by the opposite party which

                            show job numbers and date, dates of service, name of technician, service

    charges etc

Ext.A3 series -  Four receipts issued by the opposite party and their dates, name of technician,

                          date of service, amount of  service charges etc. 

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1     -  V.R.Pathmesh

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

NIL

Cost :   Nil