IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 26th day of October, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 102/2019 (Filed on 27-06-2019)
Petitioner : Shoby Sankar,
Mannathuputhenparambil
Channanikkad P.O.
Kottayam - 686533
Vs.
Opposite party : (1) Varkey Abraham,
(Managing Partner)
Muriackal Brothers,
Electrical dealers and agents
Hospital Lane, K.K. Road,
Kottayam, Kerala - 686001
(Adv. Shibu Jacob)
(2) Remson Electro Products
Pvt. Ltd. 10072, GaliZamirwali
Nawab Ganj, Pul Bangash
Delhi – 110006.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant purchased an iron box which is manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite party on 7-11- 2018. According to the complainant he had purchased the said iron box due to the instigation of the first opposite party. The said iron box caught fire on 18-5-2019. Though the complainant approached the first opposite party and requested to replace the defective iron box the first opposite party did not give any heed to his request. The fire was got at portion where the power cable connected to the panel.
The sleeve of the cable was also damaged due to fire. The sleeve alone could not be replaced. According to the complainant iron box caught fire due to its manufacturing defect. Though he had tried to contact the customer care number to avail the warranty but the number was not working. The web site and the customer care number which are printed in the warranty card is not working. Though the complainant had sent an email to the manufacturer on May 27 there was no reply. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties either to replace the iron box with another one having the same price or to refund the price of the iron box along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.3000/-.
Upon notice first opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Notice sent to the second opposite party is returned as left. Thus it is considered as deemed service as per settled law.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The complainant had purchased an iron box which is manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite party on 7-11-2018. The averment in the complaint that the second opposite party induced the complainant to purchased the iron box which is manufactured by the second opposite party is false. The complainant had purchased the Remson iron box at his own choice. On 25-5-2019 the complainant had approached the first opposite party and informed that the iron box was damaged. At that time the complainant has not disclosed anything to the first opposite party or their employees as alleged in the complaint. The averments in paragraph 2 to 7 of the complaint is false. The iron box was damaged due to the negligence of the complainant and due to the defects in the electrical wiring in the house of the complainant. The first opposite party informed the complainant that to avail the warranty the service of the company is highly necessary and the first opposite party handed over the phone number of Mr. Mohanan who is the authorized technician of the manufacturer. As a responsible dealer the first opposite party rendered all service to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A5. Since 11-3-22, the case was posted for the evidence of the opposite party, but no evidence is adduced by the first opposite party and there was no representation from the side of the 2nd opposite party.
Points for consideration.
Whether the complainant has succeeded to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and is entitled for any reliefs?
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased an iron box which is manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite on 7-11-2018.Exhiit A1 which is the tax invoice dated 7-12-2018 proves that the complainant had spent Rs.1040 to purchase DRY IRON BOX REMSON from the first opposite party. Exhibit A2 is the warranty card issued by the second opposite party. On perusal of Exhibits A2 we can see that the second opposite party offered two year warranty from the date of purchase. The warranty excludes the misuse, mishandling, accident, damage, tampering and unauthorized repairs. The specific case of the complainant is that fire was caught on iron box on 18-5-2019 at the portion where the power cable connected to the panel and the sleeve of the cable was also damaged due to fire. The sleeve alone could not be replaced. On perusal of exhibit A4 which is the print out of photo of the damaged iron box we can see that the portion at which the power cable to the iron box is caught fire.
It is pertinent to note that the complaint registered with second opposite party became vain. The first opposite party contended that they had not induced the complainant to buy the iron box in dispute. According to them as responsible dealer they had rendered all service to the complainant. They did not gave any explanation regarding the allegation that the web site and customer care number of the manufacturer of the products which sold by them to the complainant were not working. It is bounden duty of the seller to ensure that the manufacturer of
the products which are sold by the seller is providing after selling service to the customer. The seller cannot evade from the liability to rend the after sales service merely blaming the manufacturer. Thus by selling of a product to the complainant
without ensuring that manufacturer of the same is providing after sales service to the customer amounts to deceptive practice on the part of the opposite party. The second opposite party committed deficiency in service by not providing the warranty as offered by them and after sale service to the complainant. Consumer protection act is benevolent legislation which is intended to protect the innocent customers from the deceptive practice of the seller as well as the manufacturer. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we allow the complaint and pas the following order.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund Rs.1040 to the complainant which is the amount spent by him to purchase DRY IRON BOX REMSON from the first opposite party.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties 1and 2 to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as the cost of the litigation .
Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amounts to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of October, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Tax invoice dtd.07-11-2018 issued by 1st opposite party
A2 – Copy of warranty card
A3 – Copy of e-mail
A4 – Copy of photo of iron box
A5 – Computer printout Remson electrical products
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
