BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 191/2010 Filed on 29.06.2010

Dated : 15.10.2010

Complainant:

R. Saseendrakurup, Anupama, Mavinmoodu, Kallambalam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite party:

The Proprietor, Time Palace, Maithanam, Varkala P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 13.10.2010, the Forum on 15.10.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

This complaint has been filed by R. Saseendrakurup against the opposite party alleging as follows: The complainant had purchased one battery worth Rs. 35/- for his watch on 09.06.2010 from the opposite party. The complainant had asked for the bill, but the same was not issued. Further the battery worked for just 3 hours only. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party. Instead of replacement of the battery or refund of its price, the opposite party insulted the complainant in front of other customers and was not willing for replacement or refund. Hence this complaint.

Opposite party remains exparte. But a letter is seen sent by the opposite party to the Forum denying the entire allegations levelled against them.

Complainant, PW1, has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked MO1. One witness on the part of the complainant has been examined as PW2. PW1 & PW2 were not cross examined and hence their sworn statement stands unchallenged. Opposite party had no evidence.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant alleges that the battery purchased by him from the opposite party's shop functioned for about 3 hours only besides the same, no cash bill was issued to the complainant in spite of his request.

In the reply letter sent by the opposite party which is in the file, they have completely denied the allegations levelled against them. The opposite party has contended that they always issue bills for the items purchased from their shop.

In the above circumstance the evidence of the parties are to be looked into. Complainant as PW1 has sworn that he has been issued with a low ampere battery and no cash bill has been issued to him inspite of his request. Further, PW2, the witness examined on behalf of the complainant, who is working as the Section officer in Government Secretariat, has sworn that at the time of purchase of the battery in dispute, he was also with the complainant and the opposite party did not issue cash bill for the purchase of the said battery. Furthermore PW2 has affirmed that the opposite party in spite of replacing the old battery, insulted the complainant in front of other customers. The said sworn statements of both PW1 and PW2 stand uncontroverted and unchallenged since they have not been cross examined by the opposite party. In the above circumstance, this Forum is also of the view that if a battery fails to function within 3 hours of its purchase, it can be concluded that the battery charge has exhausted which points to the existence of serious defect. Since the defect has been noted by the complainant immediately within a short span of time after the said purchase and since the same has been brought to the notice of the opposite party we do not find anything to disbelieve the complainant. The complainant who is a Senior Superintendent in Government Irrigation Department has approached the Forum for the redressal of his grievance for the purchase of an item worth Rs. 35/-. If the complainant had no grievance at all, definitely he would not have approached the Forum for the said amount wasting his time and money. The complainant has been present before the Forum throughout all the posting dates. The complainant has pleaded that he was not made satisfied regarding the condition of the battery. If at all at the time of delivery, the complainant was satisfied of the perfect condition of the battery, the defects come out only after putting the battery into regular use which cannot be understood at the time of purchase. Here the complainant could not use the battery defect free even for a single day. The battery had to be taken to the opposite party's shop immediately after its purchase. As per Sec. 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, opinion of an expert is required. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court cases 513 has held that “Expert opinion is required only when a case is complicated enough warranting expert opinion, or facts of a case are such that Forum cannot resolve an issue without expert's assistance.......... Consumer Forum can give appropriate relief on the basis of summary trial on affidavits”. In view of the above facts and circumstance of the case, we find that as the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint with sufficient evidence and hence there is no necessity to follow the procedure contemplated in Sec. 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act for inspecting a battery worth Rs. 35/- only. The act of the opposite party in not issuing bill amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant has to be compensated for the deficient service on the part of the opposite party.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to give a new battery or refund Rs. 35/- to the complainant and shall also pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which execution proceedings can be initiated. In case of refund of the price of the battery, the opposite party is entitled to take back the battery from the Forum.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of October 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 191/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - R. Saseendra Kurup

PW2 - S. Chandralal

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBITS :

MO1 - Battery

PRESIDENT

jb