DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing:30/07/2021
CC/114/2021
Babu Bonaventure.A.M - Complainant
Arakkal House,Poriyani,
Mundur,Palakkad- 678 592.
(Party in person)
Vs
1. The Proprietor,
Trisco,Trichur Surgicals(PAT)
Parijath Buildings,28/351-1A
Patturakkal,Thrissur.
(By Adv. K.S.Venugopalan)
2. The Proprietor,
Corporate Office,Beurer India Pvt Ltd,- Opposite Parties
523-524, 5th Floor,JMD Megapolis,
Sector 48,Gurugramam,India- 122 018.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
By Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
1.Pleadings in the complaint are as follows.
a) The complainant’s son, Mr.Deepak Babu, purchased Blood Pressure monitor along with Juski Reusable Cotton Mask M-5% as per the invoice No.PC/21-22-5385 Dated 13/06/2021 for Rs.1950/- from the opposite party 1. Immediately after the purchase of the BP Monitor and checking at home on the same day its readings were found to be wrong.
b) Hence the same was returned through Mr.Deepak Babu to the opposite party 1 for repairs and repair receipt was obtained from them.
c) The opposite party 1 returned the BP monitor after repair and when checked again at home it showed false readings.
d) Hence the complainant returned the BP monitor through his son to opposite party 1 and asked for refund of the original cost which was denied by the opposite party 1 and hence left it at the counter of the opposite party 1.
e) The complainant mailed a complaint to the opposite party 2 being the supplier of the product on 23/07/2021 to which the opposite party 2 has failed to respond.
Hence the complaint
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and opposite party 1 entered appearance on 02/09/2021. Opposite party 2 failed to appear and hence set exparte.
3. Opposite party filed their version duly admitting the transaction. The BP monitor is a product of 2nd opposite party and has a warranty and hence the equipment is replaceable by the manufacturer(Opposite party 2). Hence, when the product was returned on 20/06/2021 by Deepak Babu, they in turn contacted the opposite party 2 and arranged for replacement and the same was collected by Mr.Deepak Babu. After a few days, the substituted new BP monitor was returned by him asking for refund of the cost. The opposite party refused to do so as they were prepared to replace the same if it is faulty.
4. Since the opposite parties had admitted that the product is defective, and that their sole objection is the refund of cost, we took up the matter for summary disposal based on admission in pleadings.
5. The issue to be examined here is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. The opposite party 1 has duly admitted all the points raised by the complainant, but for the refund of the cost of the BP monitor purchased. Their argument is that as per the general trade practice, the manufacturer/dealer have the responsibility of replacement in case of a defect in the product sold and hence they are prepared to replace the product again. Though we can’t apparently see any deficiency in service here, there is a question, as to how many replacements might be required for the consumer to get a perfect product.
It is quite common that the consumer might lose confidence in any product/brand which showed defect immediately after purchase and the replaced one also showed same defects again.
Hence the complainant is right in asking for refund, instead of replacement, especially when the complainant hails from Palakkad and opposite party is located at Thrissur.
Hence the following is ordered.
a.To refund the original cost of the BP monitor Rs.1950/- along with interest @ 9% from 13/06/2021 till the date of payment.
b. To pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for the mental agony and for unnecessary travel and other inconveniences caused.
Pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of June, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
