O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Petitioner's case is as follows.<br /> Petitioner purchased an Emergency Lamp from the First opposite party. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the emergency lantern and the first opposite party is the authorised dealer of the emergency lantern. The second opposite party gave a six month warranty for the emergency lamp. After 2 months of purchase of the emergency lamp it became non functioning. The petitioner took the lamp for repairing repair to the first opposite party. The first opposite party retained the lamp for morethan one month for repair and later replaced the tube of the lantern. . First opposite party brought Rs. 75/- for replacing the tube. According to the petitioner as per the warranty condition, the opposite party has to replace any of the part or parts of the product free of charge. The petitioner states that receiving Rs. 75/- in violation of the warranty condition is an unfair trade practice. The petitioner on 30..5..2007 sent a notice <br /> -2-<br /> intimating the opposite party to return the amount illegally claimed from the petitioner but the opposite party has not heed the demands of the petitioner . So, the petitioner approached the forum. Seeking relief of refund of the amount illegally collected by the opposite party and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- along with cost of the proceedings. <br /> The first opposite party entered appearance and not filed any version, so first opposite party was set ex-parte. Second opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version, even after receipt of notice from the Forum, so 2nd opposite party is set ex-parte.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> Petitioner produced a warranty card, issued by the second opposiste party through the first opposite party, it is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 the date of purchase is shown as 24..11..2006. In Ext. A1 the second opposite party assures the purchaser that the company will repair or replace free of charge any parts or parts of the product for a period of six months from the date of purchase. The petitioner produced bill Dtd: 12..4..2007 the said document is marked as Ext. A3. From Ext. A3 it can be seen that the amount of Rs. 75/- was collected from the petitioner for replcement of emergency bulb. As per Ext. A1 document the opposite party cannot claim any amount from the petitioner for <br /> -3-<br /> replacement of a part of the equipment, within the warranty period. The case of the petitioner is proved by the affidavit and the document field by him. Since the opposite party has not filed any version the evidence rendered by the petitioner stands unchellenged. We are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party claiming additional amount, in violation of the warranty condition, is a clear deficiency of service so point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2.<br /> In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and petitioner is entitled to <br /> relief sought for. In the result opposite party is ordered to refund petitioner the amount of Rs. 75/- . The opposite parties are also ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation and Rs. 250/- as cost of the proceedings. Since there is privity of contract between the petitioner and first opposite party. The first opposite party shall pay the amounts ordered to the petitioner with within 30 days of receipt of this order. The first opposite party can realise the amount from the second opposite party if they desires so.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2008