IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 92/2012 (Filed on 30.04.2012)
Between:
C.K. Rajeeva Varma,
Navami, Thonnalloor,
Pandalam P.O.,
Pathanamthitta,
Pin – 689 501. … Complainant.
And:
1. Videocon Industries Ltd.,
14 Kms. stone,
Aurangabad-Pathan Road,
Chitegaon, Aurangabad Dist.,
Pin – 431 105.
2. Technovision Electronics,
Near Post Office, Pandalam,
Pin – 689 501.
(By Adv. P.R. Jayakumar)
3. Videocon Service Centre,
C/o Aicon Multicare,
Kulathumuriyil Building,
Opp. Mulberry, Kumbazha Road,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased an inverter of the first opposite party with 2 years warranty on 09.01.2010 for ` 13,900 from the second opposite party. But the said inverter became defective during April 2010 and it was intimated immediately to the second opposite party. Thereafter the complainant contacted the second opposite party several times and the second opposite party told the complainant that they have intimated this matter to the service center at Ernakulam. Thereafter, technicians from the Thiruvalla service center came to the complainant’s house and examined the inverter and replaced the mother board of the inverter on 18.06.2010 under the impression that the mother board is defective. But after 4 months, the said inverter again became defective and on examination it is found that the battery is defective. This matter was intimated to the service center on 13.11.2010 and his complaint was registered as COC-1311100132 and the service center had given direction to the concerned technicians also. But the complainant’s complaint was not rectified. Hence the complainant had given complaints on 19.07.2011, 15.09.2011 and 22.11.2011. The said complaints were also registered vide COC-1907110194, 1509110040 and 2211110211. Thereafter the technician of the company collected the copy of the bill on 24.11.2011 and agreed to replace the battery. While so, the warranty period was expired and the battery was not replaced so far and the complainant’s complaints were also not rectified. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact the Ernakulam branch office through telephone. But there was no response. So the complainant sent 2 letters on 27.01.2012 and 14.02.2012. But the said letters were returned unserved with endorsement ‘no such addressee’. The said address was collected from the Owner’s Manual of the company. The complainant purchased the said inverter for the studies of his 2 children. But the complainant has not got any benefits from the said inverter due to its complaints. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for replacing a new inverter or in the alternative the complainant may be allowed to realize the whole amount paid by the complainant for purchasing the inverter.
3. In this case, opposite parties 1 and 3 are exparte and the second opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions: The second opposite party admitted the sale of the product to the complainant. It is also admitted that they received a complaint from the complainant regarding the defects of the inverter. Immediately, on getting the above said oral complaint of the complainant, they have informed the said matter to the company. Further, the second opposite party advised the complainant to lodge a complaint before the company. Thereafter the complainant never made any complaint to the second opposite party and the second opposite party performed his duty with utmost good faith and care and hence there was no negligence from the part of the second opposite party. The other averments in the complaint are not known to the second opposite party. The complaint itself shows that there is no deficiency of service from the part of the second opposite party. The second opposite party never made any laches or negligence in this regard. With the above contentions, second opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and the proof affidavit of the second opposite party and Exts. A1 to A5. After closure of the evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the inverter and the battery purchased from the second opposite party became defective within the warranty period. The complaints were properly intimated to the opposite parties. But so far they have not rectified the defects of the inverter and battery. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit and an additional proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 5 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavits, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the original cash bill dated 09.01.2010 for ` 13,915 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the inverter. Ext. A2 is the Owner’s Manual and warranty of the inverter of the first opposite party issued by the second opposite party at the time of selling the inverter. Ext. A3 is the warranty card of the battery of the first opposite party issued by the second opposite party at the time of purchase of the inverter. Ext. A4 is the undelivered registered letter issued by the complainant to the Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd, Kochi. Ext. A5 is another undelivered registered courier sent by the complainant to the Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd, Kochi.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the second opposite party is that when the complainant’s complaint regarding the inverter and battery was received, they have intimated the said complaint to the company immediately and also they have advised the complainant to send a complaint to the company. Thereafter, the complainant has not contacted the second opposite party. As the dealer of the product, they have done everything perfectly and has not committed any laches or negligence to the complainant. Thus, they argued that they have not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs paid against them.
9. In order to prove the contentions of the second opposite party, the second opposite party filed a proof affidavit and cross examined the complainant. But they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased an inverter and battery manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party on 09.01.2010 for ` 13,915. As per Exts. A2 and A3, there is 2 year warranty for the inverter and the battery purchased by the complainant. The complainant’s allegation is that the said products become defective during its warranty period and it was not rectified by the opposite parties in spite of the warranty and the complainant’s request for rectifying the defect. In view of the contention of the second opposite party, the complainant’s allegation of the defects of the equipments stands proved. Further allegation of the complainant that the defects occurred during its warranty period has not been rectified by the opposite parties in spite of his request for the same. In the absence of any cogent evidence against the above said allegation, we came to the conclusion that the defects of the equipments were not rectified by the opposite parties, which is no doubt, a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
11. At the same time, being the seller of the products who also received the price of the products had a duty to resolve the grievances of their customer. But in this case, what the second opposite party had done is that they have simply informed the complainant’s complaint to the other opposite parties and they have not done anything effectively for redressing the complainant’s grievances. In that respect, second opposite party also committed deficiency of service to the complainant. The deposition of PW1 that he had no complainants against second opposite party alone is not sufficient to exonerate second opposite party from his liability. Further due to the vagueness in the pleadings and in the evidence of the complainant, no deficiency is found against third opposite party. Therefore, we find that opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed deficiency in service to the complainant and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint is allowable.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed; thereby the second opposite party is directed to replace the inverter and the battery purchased by the complainant as per Ext. A1 cash bill with a brand new inverter and battery of the same brand with 2 years warranty along with compensation of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) and cost of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize a total amount of ` 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) from the second opposite party with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
13. The complainant is directed to return the defective equipments to the second opposite party on compliance of this order by the second opposite party. It is further ordered that the second opposite party can realize the cost of the products and compensation and cost ordered by this Forum from the first opposite party, if second opposite party desires so.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and produced in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of September, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Rajeeva Varma.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Cash bill dated 09.01.2010 for ` 13,915 issued by the
second opposite party to the complainant.
A2 : Owner’s Manual and warranty of the inverter of the
first opposite party issued by the second opposite party.
A3 : Warranty card of the battery of the first opposite party
issued by the second opposite party.
A4 : Undelivered registered letter issued by the complainant to
the Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd, Kochi.
A5 : Undelivered registered courier letter sent by the
complainant to the Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd,
Kochi.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) C.K. Rajeeva Varma, Navami, Thonnalloor,
Pandalam P.O., Pathanamthitta,
Pin – 689 501.
(2) Videocon Industries Ltd., 14 Kms. stone,
Aurangabad-Pathan Road, Chitegaon,
Aurangabad Dist., Pin – 431 105.
(3) Technovision Electronics, Near Post Office,
Pandalam, Pin – 689 501.
(4) Videocon Service Centre, C/o Aicon Multicare,
Kulathumuriyil Building, Opp. Mulberry,
Kumbazha Road, Pathanamthitta.
(5) The Stock File.
