O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:-  On 27.3.07 the complainant had purchased a V-Guard Stabilizer Model VGD 40 from the 3^rd opposite party on payment of price ` 1,000.  The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party is the authorised service centre of the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party.  At the time of purchase, opposite parties have issued a warranty card stating the warranty for 5 years against the manufacturing defect of the stabilizer from the date of purchase.  On 1.4.10 the stabilizer become defective and it was brought before the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party for repairs along with warranty card and purchase bill.   The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party demanded the repairing charges of ` 203 from the complainant.  Subsequently the complainant paid the repairing charge and taken back the repaired stabilizer.  Thereafter the complainant had sent a legal notice to the opposite parties demanding to refund of illegally charged amount along with compensatory cost.  But the opposite parties denied the demand of complainant.  By receiving repairing charges within the warranty period from the complainant, the opposite parties committed a clear deficiency in service and the act of opposite parties amounts to an unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to refund the repairing charges with interest along with compensation and cost.

                   3. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party filed a version stating the following contentions:  There was no warranty card or purchase bill produced by the complainant along with the stabilizer when the stabilizer brought before the 1^st opposite party for repairing.  Hence the 1^st opposite party levied service charges.  At the time when the complainant brought the stabilizer to the service centre, the warranty seal was broken which shows that the stabilizer was opened and tampered by unauthorised technician against condition laid down in the warranty card.  This defect was shown to the complainant who in turn had acknowledged the defect.  The lawyers notice sent to the opposite parties were properly replied to, where in the opposite parties expressed their willingness to pay off the service charge said to have been levied from the complainant for the sake of maintaining good customer relationship regardless of the complainant’s short coming.  Even now the opposite parties are ready to pay off the service charge levied from the complainant.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service from the part of these opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled to realise any amount claimed as per the complainant.  Hence this opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   4. The 3^rd opposite party has not appeared or filed version.  Hence he set exparte and remained as such.

                   5. From the above pleadings, following points were raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)   Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

          6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 based on the proof affidavit filed by him and Ext.A1 to A8 were marked.  In the opposite parties 1^st opposite party examined as DW1 and one witness for the opposite party examined as DW2.  Ext.B1 was marked through PW1.

          7. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a stabilizer from 3^rd opposite party on 27.3.07 for an amount of `1,000.  The opposite parties issued a warranty card and offered a warranty against the manufacturing defects for a period of 5 years from the date of purchase.  On 1.4.2010 the above said stabilizer become faulty and it was brought before the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party for repairing along with warranty card and purchase bill.  The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party repaired the stabilizer and charged ` 203 as the repairing charge.  Charging of repairing work during the warranty period is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting reliefs as sought for in the complaint.

                   8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A8 marked.  Ext.A1 is the purchase bill dated 27.3.07.  Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the cash bill dated 6.4.10 issued by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant on 17.4.2010 to the opposite parties.  Ext.A5 series are the postal receipts of Ext.A4 and Ext.A6 series are the acknowledgment cards of Ext.A4.  Ext.A7 is the reply of Ext.A4 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A8 is the reply of Ext.A4 sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.  The opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW1 and Ext.B1 marked through him. 

                   9. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party contended that the complainant has not produced the purchase bill or warranty card at the time when he brought the stabilizer for repairing before the 1^st opposite party.  Under which the 1^st opposite party levied service charges from the complainant.  Moreover when the complainant brought the stabilizer to the service centre, the warranty seal was found broken which shows that the stabilizer was opened and tampered by unauthorised technician against the warranty condition.  In the reply notice sent to the complainant the opposite parties expressed their willingness to pay off the service charge levied from the complainant for the sale of maintaining good customer relationship.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the opposite parties hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from opposite parties.

                   10. In order to prove the contentions raised by the opposite parties, 1^st opposite party examined as DW1 and one witness for the opposite parties examined as DW2.  Ext.B1 marked through PW1 at the time of cross-examination.

                   11. The complainant’s counsel cross-examined DW1 and DW2.

                   12. We have perused all the documents produced from both sides.  On a perusal of Ext.A2 it was issued on 27.3.07, as per Ext.A2 the opposite parties undertake to repair the unit for a period of 5 years free of cost.  As per Ext.A3, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.203 to the 1^st opposite party as the repairing charge of the stabilizer on 6.4.10, i.e. during the warranty period.  According to the complainant, charging of repairing charges during the warranty period is against the terms and conditions of the warranty agreement.  Hence he is entitled to get refund of the repairing charge along with compensation.

                   13. The opposite parties contention is that the complainant has not produced the warranty card and purchase bill at the time of production of stabilizer for repairing and the warranty seal affixed in the stabilizer was seen broken.  On a perusal of Ext.B1 job card, the remark stated against the warranty seal is ‘no’.  At the time of cross-examination DW2 stated as follows:- “Cu stabilizer-  Ct¸mgpw warranty seal D­v.  F¶m AXv broken BWv.  Cu stabilizer repairing þ\v sIm­ph¶ kab¯v seal broken Bbncp¶p (Q).  Cu seal broken BsW¦nepw Cu stabilizerþsâ warranty seal  BWv.  Cu stabilizer serviceþ\v sIm­ph¶ Znhkw Xs¶ Rm³ I­ncp¶p“.  If the warranty seal is broken it should have written in Ext.B1 Job card.  In Ext.B1 it is recorded as ‘No’ warranty seal.  The deposition of DW2 as, “Cu seal broken BsW¦nepw Cu stabilizerþsâ warranty seal  BWv “ and the recording in Ext.B1 as “No” warranty seal, there is a contradiction between deposition and recording of Ext.B1.  Moreover, there is a job card number seen in Ext.A3 repairing bill issued by the opposite party.  But no job card number seen in Ext.B1. 

                   14. Another contention of the opposite party is that the warranty card and the purchase bill were not produced by the complainant at the time when he brought the stabilizer before the 1^st opposite party for repairing.  If the complainant has not produced the purchase bill or warranty card along with stabilizer it should have recorded in the job card.  From that we presume that the complainant had produced the above said documents along with stabilizer at the time of repairing.  From the above discussion, we came to a conclusion that all the contentions raised by the opposite parties are not sustainable.  The repairing charge received from the complainant during the warranty period of the stabilizer is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties.  The complainant is entitled to get return the repairing charges along with compensation from opposite parties.  For allowing cost, the opposite parties are ready to reimburse the repairing charges collected from the complainant and it was informed the opposite parties through Ext.A8.  The complainant can approach the opposite parties and collect this repairing charge, but he did not do so.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get cost from the opposite parties.  In the nature and circumstances of this complaint, the parties are bear their respective costs.  In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get the repairing charges with interest along with compensation from the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint can be allowed with modifications.

                   15. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby the complainant is allowed to realise ` 203 (Rupees Two hundred and Three only) as the repairing charges of the stabilizer received by the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party from the complainant with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint till this date along with a compensation of ` 750 (Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only) from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which an interest at the rate of 12% will be paid to the whole amount to the complainant till the whole realisation. 

                    Declared in the Open Forum on this the 20^th day of March, 2011.

                                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                                       C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                              (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                       :    (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                      :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Mathew Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Purchase bill dated 27.3.07 issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the 

              complainant. 

A2     :  Warranty card issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant.  A3 :   Cash bill dated 6.4.10 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 

              complainant. 

A4     :  Photocopy of the legal notice dated 17.4.2010 sent by the 

             complainant to the opposite parties. 

A5, A5(a) & A5(b)       :  Postal receipts of Ext.A4.

A6, A6(a) & A6(b)       :  Acknowledgment cards of Ext.A4. 

A7     :  Reply of Ext.A4 sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  A8     :  Reply of Ext.A4 sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 :  Thomas. P. Mathew

DW2 :  Muhammed Rafeek

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Photocopy of the Job Card dated 3.4.2010 issued by opposite party 

              to the complainant.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                     Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Mathew Varghese, Puthenchirayil House, Mekkozhoor,

                       Mylapra Village, Pathanamthitta.

(2)  The Proprietor, M/s. Petra Distributors, Building No.XXIII/45,

           Aji Bhavan, Santhosh Junction, Pathanamthitta.

(3)  The Managing Director, V-Guard Industries Ltd.,

            44/1037, Little Floor, Church Road, Kaloor, Cochin – 682 017.

(4)  The Proprietor, National Trades & Agencies,

            Kozhencherry Road, Pathanamthitta.

     (5)  The Stock File.