Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, B.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the7th day of October,2003
C.D.No.9/2003
K.Narasaiah,
S/o. K.Hanumanthappa,
H.No.5-120 A,
Mahathma Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri P. Siva sudharshan
-Vs-
1.The proprietor,
M/s. Rama Krishna Electronics
Shop No.29& 30,
New Municipal Complex,
Park Road,
Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party
- The Managing Director,
M/s .Synphony comfort systems Ltd.,
H.O Saumya Nr. Bankeri Circle,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11&12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to replace the Air cooler with new one or to return Rs.6, 200/- price of the Air Cooler RS.10,000/- towards mental agony, cost of the complaint and grant any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The gist of the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a symphony Sumo Model Air Cooler from the opposite party No.1 for RS.6,200/- vide bill No.3916 dt 30.1.2002, a warranty card for a period of one year was issued to the complainant, the opposite party No.2 is the manufacture of the symphony Sumo Model Air coolers. The complainant used the said cooler for personal use and after a few days of the purchase the pump system failed and the said cooler was not functioning properly . Then the complainant handed over the said cooler to the opposite party No.1 number of times to rectify the said defect but the machanic of the opposite party No.1 failed to rectify the said defect in the said cooler and the machanic finally came to the conclusion that there is manufacturing defect in the cooler and it is not possible for them to rectify the said defect. The opposite party No.1 promised the complainant that they will replace the pump system in the Air Cooler but so far they have not replaced with new pump system. When the complainant questioned the opposite party No.1 showing the warranty card the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to approach the opposite party No.2. Hence the complainant is compelled to approach the Forum as there arises deficiency of service on the opposite party No.1&2.
3. The complainant in support of his complaint averments filed (1) bill No.3916 dt 30.1.2002 issued by the opposite party to the complainant for the purchased of symphony Sumo Model Air cooler for RS.6,200/- and (2) warranty registration card of the opposite party. The complainant filed his sworn-affidavit in support of his complaint and in-reiteration of his complaint averments hence the supra documents are marked as Ex A.1 and Ex A.2 for their appreciation in this case.
4. The opposite parties inspite of service of notice of this Forum of this case did not turn up to the date of appearance on dt 3.3.2003 and being absent through out to the case proceedings.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?:-
6. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a symphony Sumo Model Air cooler from the opposite party No.1 for domestic purpose. It had a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The allegation of the complainant that after a few days of the purchase the pump set of the said Air cooler failed and the opposite party No.1 could not rectify the failed pump set and requested the complainant that they will replace with new one but so far they did not replace it. This allegation of the complainant remains unrebuttal by the opposite parties by their absence to the proceedings of the case and no material is brought on record for their defence to the complaint averments and its non-availability to the claim made by the complainant. The promise of the opposite party No.1 to replace the pump set with new pumpset remained as promise for promise sake.
7. The Ex A.1 purchase bill dt 30.1.2002 envisages the purchase of symphony Sumo Model Air Cooler by the complainant for RS.6,200/- and its issual by the opposite party No.1. The Ex A.2 is the warranty registration card issued by the opposite parties and the said Air cooler failed during the warranty period. The Ex A.2 envisages company’s liability under the warranty will be for the following parts (1) Motor 2) pump and (3) Louvers motors, the complainant alleges that his Air cooler pump set failed during the warranty period which is covered under warrant period and he is entitled for its replacement which is not rebutted by the opposite party by placing any relevant cogent material on record in their defence and there by remaining absent to the proceedings of the case inspite of the fact of receiving notice of this case. There appears no much difficulty in holding the opposite party liable to the complainant.
8. From the documents marked above as the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought as the Air cooler failed within the warranty period, the opposite parties cannot escape its liability to make good of the complainants claim by remaining absent to the case proceedings by his doscile conduct there appears every reasonability in the reliefs sought by the complainant.
9. In the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to replace the Air cooler with new one of same description or return the price of the Air cooler RS. 6,200/-, RS.500/- as compensation and RS.500/- as cost of the complaint with in one month of the receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall be liable to pay the supra stated amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the open Court this the 7th day of October,2003
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
