BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 31st day of December, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.162/2009 Between Complainant : Joseph Chacko, Kodithottathil House, Thankamany P.O, M.K.Padi – 685 510, Idukki District. (By Adv: Jose Thomas) And Opposite Parties : 1. Universal Comunications, Idukki Colony P.O, Cheruthony, Pin 685 602, Idukki District. 2. Biju, Puthiyathu House, Melekuppachampadi P.O, Pushpagiri, Idukki District. 3. Reliance Communication Limited, No.#7, North Phase Guindy, Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is an agriculturist who is growing cattle for his daily bread. On 29.2.2008 the complainant purchased a land phone instrument from the 2nd opposite party shop with telephone No.323515 manufactured by the Reliance Communication Ltd. The cost of the telephone was Rs.2,500/- and guarantee of 3 years was also given to the instrument. The opposite party also offered free incoming call for 12 years at the time of purchase of the same. But the said telephone became defective on 12.5.2009. The complainant informed the matter to the 3rd opposite party company and also 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Then they told that there is authorised service centre for the company at Thodupuzha, Upputhodu, Kattappana and Cheruthoni. After enquiry it is revealed that there is no such service centres situated at those places, when they approached the shop mentioned by the opposite party at Kattappana, they opened the telephone and told him it needs Rs.2,000/- for the repair of the telephone. There is no guarantee offered by them. They also told him to buy a new telephone instead of the old one. No bill or sealed papers were given at the time of purchase. Only 3 documents printed in English were given to the complainant. The complainant is not aware that what all things are written on that pages. So the complaint has filed for getting a fresh telephone or for repayment of the amount paid by the complainant. 2. Notice was duly served to the Ist and 2nd opposite parties and 3rd opposite party refused to receive the notice, but they were absent and called exparte.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. P1(series) marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- Complainant purchased a land phone from the 2nd opposite party on 29.2.2008 after paying an amount of Rs.2,000/-. Eventhough it was having a warranty of 3 years, they never repaired the same when the telephone become default. Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 purchased a land phone from the 2nd opposite party which is manufactured and operated by 3rd opposite party after paying Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase the 2nd opposite party assured 2 years guarantee, 3 years warranty and 12 years free incoming call facility. The telephone No. was 323515. Ext. P1 (series) is the warranty card, users manual and the brochure issued by the 3rd opposite party at the time of purchase. The bill was not issued by the opposite party. The said telephone became defective within 10 months. The matter was informed to the customer care of 3rd opposite party, but they never turned up. But they replied that, "it is a low cost phone, and the complainant used for some period, that is enough, no loss is caused". Again contacted the 2nd opposite party, they directed to contact the Ist opposite party who is the authorised service centre at Cheruthoni, Idukki, who supplied the same to the 2nd opposite party. When PW1 approached them they replied to buy another phone. PW1 is a poor, coolie, illiterate, and his father with serious illness admitted in Mission Hospital, Kattappana. So he was in very need of a telephone. Same telephone number was given to several Nursing Colleges for the admission of his child for nursing. These matters were not challenged by the opposite parties. The poor illiterate man paid Rs.2,000/- for the purchase of a telephone, operated and manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. In Ext. P1(a) warranty card issued by the opposite party, it is written that the telephone is having a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase, as per the PW1, the telephone became defective within 10 months. So it is a gross deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party to avoid him from repairing the same. Ist opposite party is the authorised distributor who supplied the telephone to PW1. It may be true that PW1 suffered a lot of inconvenience because of the lack of telephone. So we think it is proper to supply a fresh telephone by taking back the defective telephone and pay Rs.1,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties, 1 to 3 are directed to replace a fresh telephone of the same quality after taking back the old one or pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within one month. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- for the inconvenience caused because of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and Rs.1,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2009
Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Joseph Chacko On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1(a) - Warranty Card Ext.P1(b) - Booklet Ext.P1(c) - User Guide On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil
|
