CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

                                            

   CC No 90/11

                                    Saturday the 27^th day of October,2012

 

Petitioner                                              : Mary George,

                                                               Mattappallil House,

                                                               Thalayolaparambu PO,

                                                               Vaikom, Kottayam.

                                                               (Adv. Satheesh Mathew Zacharias)

                                                            Vs.

 

Opposite party                                     : 1) The Officer- in-charge

                                                                   Indian Naval Canteen Services(INCS)

                                                                   Venduruthy, Kochi.

                                                             2) Igo, MIRC Electronics Ltd,

                                                                 G-1, MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road,

                                                                  Andheri(E)400 093.

                                                             3) Video Care No.655,

                                                                  Ozees Bhavan, Puthuppally Road,,

                                                                   Muttambalam PO, Kanjikuzhy.     

                                                                 (OP 2&3 Adv.Emmanuel Thomas)

 

 

 

            The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:-

            The complainant purchased an inverter of model SN600/12V DC bearing serial no.L18E003621Z for Rs.5166.79 from the opposite party shop. The said inverter had a warranty period of 24months. After the purchase of the said inverter it became defective several times. When the mal functioning occurred for the first time, it was informed to the opposite parties. But they came to repair the inverter only after three months and repaired it. Again on 11/2/11 the said inverter showed mal functioning and it was again informed to the opposite parties. The opposite parties had not repaired the inverter till now. According to the complainant the said act of the opposite parties is a clear case of deficiency in service. She contented that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the mental agony and financial loss suffered by her. Hence she filed this complaint claiming the replacement of the defective inverter and compensation of Rs.15,000/-

            Notice was served to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties failed to file version even after so many postings. Hence the opposite parties were set expartee.

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 the exparty affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A3.

            Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant averred that she purchased an inverter of price 5166.79 on 13/6/09 from the opposite parties.   Evidencing the said purchase she produced the original cash memo and it is marked as Ext.A1. She alleged that inverter became defective after two weeks of its installation and the said complaint was informed to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties had repaired it only after three months.   The complainant further averred that after the first repair, the said inverter became defective several times. The complainant next averred that she had purchased a new battery for the defective inverter. Evidencing the said purchase she produced the copy of purchase bill and it is marked as Ext.A3. It was again averred by the complainant that the inverter had a warranty of 24 months.   Evidencing the said averment she produced the original warranty card and it is marked as Ext.A2. The complainant alleged that even after so

 

many repairs the inverter is till defective and that the opposite parties utterly failed to redress her grievance. As the opposite parties chose not to contest, the averments and the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged. On scanning the evidence placed on record we also feel that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed. The complaint is ordered as follows.

            The opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 will jointly and severally replace the defective inverter with a brand new inverter of the same price or will refund Rs.5166.79 to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.1500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of copy of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of October, 2012.

 

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)            Sd/-                                        

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

                                                                       

Ext.A1-Original receipt dtd 13/6/09

Ext.A2-Original warranty card

Ext.A3-Copy of receipt dtd 27/5/12.

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.