IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 3rd day of November 2009 C.C.No.61/2007 Muhammed Nisafar.K.T., Proprietor, Ex-in Zone,Near Bus stand, Complainant Irikkur. (Rep. by Adv.E.P.Hamza kutty) 1.D.Venunathan, Senior Manager, Master Business & Services, 2nd floor, UTI Bank Building, Near Potheri Nursing Home Kannur. 2. Biju.C.K. Customer Executive Master Business & Services, Opp.Highway Juma Masjid, Opposite parties N.H 17, Taliparamba (Rep.by Adv.K.Vijayan) 3. Managing Director, Link Well Tele Systems,’VISIONTECK’ Gowra Classic, Begumpet Hyderabad 16. (Rep. by Adv.K.Vijayan) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.16, 485/- along with Rs.4, 000/- as compensation. The complainant’s case is that he had approached the opposite party for electronic machines and equipments for starting a telephone booth as self employment for his livelihood. For his business purpose he had purchased an electronic billing machine (model No.31-B of Vision tek) manufactured by 3rd opposite party and a coin box of reliance India PCO from 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party by giving Rs.14,000/-. At the time of purchase 3rd opposite party assured replacement of the billing machine in the event of major complaint without any cost and has a guaranty for one year. But within the normal use of 6 months the billing machine became failure and the booth system became non-working condition. On information from the complainant, the service executive visited the machine and directed the complainant for better service on the cost of the complainant, even though the opposite party has liability to service it free of cost. Due to the adamant attitude of opposite party, the complainant has suffered stoppage of business and hence the balance amount of prepaid account of Rs.2, 485/- was lapsed. The complainant suffered irreparable injury and loss of Rs.4000/-. So the complainant had issued a lawyer notice. But even though they have received the same they neither repaired the machine nor paid the amount. Hence this complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum, opposite parties 2 and 3 appeared and filed their version. 1st opposite party remains absent and hence he was called absent and set exparte. 2nd opposite party field version stating the following contentions. They admit the purchase of Reliance India PCO billing machine. But contended that out of the price of Rs.14, 000/- Rs.3060/- is the cost of prepaid card which the complainant had used. Immediately after the receipt of complaint 2nd opposite party deputed his service executive for necessary inspection and repair but he was not allowed to carryout the repair demanding replacement with new one and the complaint was that of power adapter of the equipment and hence there was no major complaint for the machine and it could be repaired easily, but the complainant took an adamant stand for replacement. The complaint is regarding the billing machine manufactured by vision tech and hence 3rd opposite party is responsible and the 2nd opposite party is only an agent of the company and has no personal liability. More over the 2nd opposite party is still ready and willing to carryout the repairs at his own cost and hence there was no deficiency or unlawful trade practice on the part of 2nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 3rd opposite party also filed version admitting the purchase of machine from 2nd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party denies that they had issued warranty and assurance of replacement. The complainant has not given any complaint to 3rd opposite party regarding the equipment. The 3rd opposite party admits that 2nd opposite party’s service executive inspected the equipments for necessary repair but the complainant was not allowed to carryout demanding replacement with new one. There was no major complaint since the complaint was of the power adaptor and it could be repaired easily and there was no deficiency on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A6. Issue No.1 The complainant in his pleadings contended that he had started the Telephone booth by name ‘Ex-in zone’ for his livelihood and the instruments purchased from opposite parties were used for conducting the above said telephone booth. But the opposite parties have not proved or produced any documents to show that the complainant had other means for his livelihood. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering works Vs. P.S.Co. Industrial dispute, held that a person who buys goods and use them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment is within the definition of the terms ‘consumer’ which was reported in 1995(II)CPJ. Here in this case also the complainant had purchased the billing machine for earning for his livelihood and hence he is a consumer and the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. Issue No.2 & 3 Admittedly the complainant had purchased an electronic billing machine (model.31.B) with Reliance India PCO through 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of billing machine. But the 2nd opposite party contended that the amount received from the complainant i.e. Rs.14, 000/- is including the cost of prepaid card Rs.3060/-. But the complainant has produced Ext.A4 (a) receipt dt.20.4.06 for Rs.4000/- and Ext.A4 (b) dt.21.4.06for Rs.10, 000/-. These receipts show that Ext.A4 (a) is issued towards payment for CCB and Ext.A4 (b) for payment for 31 B. No where in these bills were stated that it will included the cost of prepaid card. Moreover Ext.A6 (a) dt.21.6.06 for Rs.1290/-, A6 (a) for Rs.1000/- dt.18.4.06 and A6(c) dt.18.4.06 for Rs.500/-. This Ext.A6 receipts shows that the complainant had again spent the above said amount of Rs.2790/-. The complainant contended that the billing machine became failure within 6 months of its normal use. The opposite party has admitted that the machine became faulty and the complainant was not allowed the opposite parties to cure the defect with an intention to replace the defaulted machine. So it is true that the machine became faulty within 6 months of purchase. It is true that the complainant has not produced any warranty and the opposite party also says that this machine is not covered under any warranty. But in normal course machine became defective within 6 months of its purchase indicates that this machine has some sort of manufacturing defects. The opposite party has no case that the machine became faulty due to careless use of the complainant. The opposite party says that the machine is in working condition and only the adapter is defective. But opposite party has not taken any steps either to functioning the machine by using a new adaptor or has not produced any evidence that the machine is in good condition. From these it can be inferred that the 3rd opposite party had issued a low quality machine and hence there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties for which all opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. It is true that the stoppage of a telephone booth soon after six months of its opening will cause so much of mental hardship to the complainant who had started it as a means of livelihood. It is true that the complainant has not produced any warranty card, because of this the liability of the opposite parties was limited to repair the billing machine and retain it in working condition without levying any charge from the complainant. Opposite parties are also liable to compensate the complainant by giving Rs.2000/- for his mental agony and financial loss and Rs.500/- as cost. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to repair the billing machine and retain it in working condition and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A2.Postal receipt A3.Replynotice dt.6.3.07 A4.Receipts issued by OP A5.Power of Attorney A6.Receipts issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Noushad.T. Witness examined for the opposite parties: DW1.Biju.P.R /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
