BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 13/03/2009

Date of Order : 31/12/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 154/2009

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

On 11-05-2007, the complainant purchased a brand new Yamaha Key board from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 9,000/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The opposite parties provided two years warranty for the key board. On 31-07-2008, the switch of the key board became defunct and on the same day, the complainant entrusted the gadget with the 2^nd opposite party for its repairs. Time and again, the complainant had to approach the 2^nd opposite party to get it repaired. Finally on 09-08-2008, the 2^nd opposite party intimated that they could not repair the same during warranty. On 19-08-2008, the complainant received back the machine without its repair. On 01-09-2008, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to get his grievances redressed but in vain. The complainant is entitled to get the refund of the price of the gadget together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties 3 to 7 :-

The opposite parties 3 to 7 admit the purchase of the key board by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party. The key board was properly serviced and the same was returned to the complainant after its repairs. The opposite parties 3 to 7 undertake to repair the defects, if any in the key board on payment by the complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 7. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as sought.

3. The 1^st opposite party was deleted from the party array vide order in I.A. No. 589/2009 dated 30-01-2010. During the proceedings, the 2^nd opposite party passed away and his legal heirs were impleaded consequently in the party array as additional opposite parties 3 to 7. The 8^th and 9^th opposite parties opted not to contest the case for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on his side. The 7^th opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the counsel for the contesting parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the key board from the opposite parties?

2. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly on 11-05-2007, the complainant purchased a key board from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 9,000/- evident from Ext. A1. Ext. A2 is the warranty card issued by the 2^nd opposite party in which the address of the manufacturer of the key board is not mentioned. During the proceedings at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 28/2011, the 2^nd opposite party was directed to produce the address of the manufacturer in which they failed. The issuance of Ext. A2 warranty card without mentioning the name of the manufacturer amounts not only deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. DW1 deposed that 'Yamaha India Limited' is the manufacturer of the machine. Since the dealer has not disclosed the full address of the manufacturer, the dealer is answerable for and on behalf of the manufacturer. The dealer failed to respond to Ext. A3 lawyer notice in spite of receipt of the same by Ext. A4 acknowledgment card.

6. The opposite parties 3 to 7 the legal heirs of the 2^nd opposite party maintain that they have duly rectified the defect of the keyboard in time. But nothing is on record to substantiate the same. In the above circumstances, the opposite parties 3 to 7 are bound to and liable to replace the defective gadget of the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party has not cared to pay any attention unexplained for even after receipt of Ext. A3 lawyer notice which calls for compensation. We fix it at Rs. 2,000/- an exemplary costs of Rs. 1,000/- is also awarded.

7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :

1. The opposite parties 3 to 7 shall jointly and severally replace the key board under dispute with a new one with fresh warranty according to the choice of the complainant. The complainant is directed to pay the excess amount, if any for the same.

2. The complainant shall return the defective key board to the opposite parties 3 to 7 simultaneously.

3. The opposite parties 3 to 7 shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realisation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of December 2011.

Sd- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========