BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.26/2014

Dated this the 1^st day of March 2016

A.K. Ramadoss, son of Krishnamourthy

No.1, Vasugi Street, Kuyavarpalayam

Pondicherry.

                                                            ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. Vijaya Electric Company rep. by its

    Authorised signatory.

    No.126, Jawaharlal Nehru Street,

    Pondicherry.

2. Vijaya Marketing rep. by its             

    Authorised Signatory

    D.A.T. Road,

    Puducherry – 605 001.

                                    .                                              ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  Party-in-Person.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Thiru V. Govindaradjou, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Reimburse the sum of Rs.1600/- towards the purchase cost of B.P.L. Charger light purchased by the complainant on  21.2.2013;                
2. To award compensation of Rs.10,000/- for stress, strain and mental agony caused due to the negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of Electric company;
3. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this litigation.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant had purchased a B.P.L Charger light from Vijaya Electric Company on 21.02.2013 with a guarantee period of one year.  After some time, it became out of order during the guarantee period.  He reported the matter to the above said company who directed him to contract their service center i.e. the second Opposite Parte.  The complainant approached the second opposite party and handed over the charger light who in turn issued an acknowledgement in the form of work order bearing No.755 dated 27.01.2014 for having received the goods from him.  The second OP has contacted the complainant to take delivery of the repaired goods by returning the original work order.  Since the complainant was in a dilemma as to whether they have repaired it properly and satisfactorily and stated that he will return the original work order if the charger light repaired satisfactorily and was found in proper working condition and asked them to give a letter to that effect.  But, the second OP refused to give such a letter and stated that unless and until the original work order is returned, they will not deliver the repaired goods which created suspicion in the complainant's mind as to whether it was temporarily repaired and will become out of order in the near future i.e. after the expiry of guarantee period.  Hence, the complainant issued a detailed letter to the first Opposite Party asked them to direct the second Opposite Party to give a letter as demanded by the complainant for taking delivery of the repaired goods by registered post on 12.02.2014 which was acknowledged by them on 14.02.2014, but, there was no response from them to the above said letter.  Hence, this complaint.

            3. The reply version filed by the second Opposite Party and adopted by first Opposite Party briefly discloses the following:

            The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The Opposite Parties admitted that the complainant has purchased a B.P.L. Charger Lighter from the first OP on 21.2.2013 vide bill No. 21368 with warranty of one year.  On 27.1.2014 the complainant brought the charger lighter to the second Opposite Party with a complaint "Not working".  The second OP received the charger lighter and issued a work order No.755 dated 27.01.2014 and asked the complainant to come after two days.  On checking the charger light, it has found that the battery was dry which may caused dued to failure on the part of the complainant to charge the lighter as per the instructions given in the manual.  The second Opposite Party changed the battery with a new one and informed the same to the complainant, but the complainant did not turn up and therefore, the second OP has contacted the complainant and informed him that this charger light was ready and asked the complainant over phone on 30.1.2014 to collect the BPL charger light from them.  On 31.1.2014 the complainant has come to the service centre of the opposite party for taking delivery without giving the work order bill.  However, the complainant was reluctant to hand over the bill and further insisted upon them to give warranty for another one year.  This Opposite party has not acceded to his demand for warranty for the battery for one more year, which was not in accordance with the terms of warranty and for handing over the said charger light, without producing the work order bill.  Normally the customer has to hand over the original work order copy to the service centre and take the product after testing / verifying the same, but, in this case, the complainant has insisted that a letter has tobe given to him stating that this opposite party has repaired is satisfactory and brought it to working condition, which is not legally correct and also not in accordance with the normal practice in business.  This opposite party submitted that even during the pendency of the complaint has produced and expressed their readiness to hand over the BPL Charger lighter to the complainant, but, the complainant has refused to accept the same.  The opposite parties are ready and willing to hand over the repaired BPL charger lighter to the complainant.   Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            4.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C5.  On the side of opposite party, RW1 was examined.  No documents were marked.  MO1 marked.

             5.        Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

            6.  Point No.1:

            The complainant has purchased a B.P.L. Charger light from Vijaya Electric Company, the first Opposite Party herein on 21.02.2013.    To prove the same, the complainant has produced the Ex.C1 the cash bill No. 21368 dated 21.02.2013.    So, it is proved that the complainant is consumer for the opposite parties.

            7.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the pleadings, Exs.C1 to C5, the evidence adduced by the complainant and the opposite parties.  From the available records it is clear that on 21.02.2013 the complainant purchased a BPL Charger light from the first Opposite Party vide Ex.C1 Cash Bill with a guarantee of one year vide Ex.C3 warranty card.  Within the guarantee period of one year, the product became out of order and hence, on 27.01.2014, the complainant handed over the same to the second Opposite Party for rectification who in turn issued Work Order Ex.C2.  It is alleged by the complainant that the second Opposite Party had contacted him and asked to take delivery of the MO by return of the original work order.  In order to confirm whether the OP2 has satisfactorily repaired the MO, the complainant asked a letter from them and the same was refused.  Hence, he gave a letter dated 12.02.2014 vide Ex.C4 to the first Opposite Party to direct the second Opposite Party to give a letter as demanded by the complainant.  The said letter was acknowledged by the first Opposite Party vide Ex.C5, but, they have not responded for the same.

            8. On the otherhand, the Opposite Party alleged that the second opposite party who is the authorised service centre receipt the Charger Light from the complainant on 27.1.2014 and found that the battery was dry and it may be due to failure on the part of the complainant to charge the lighter as per the instructions given in the manual.  However, they have changed the battery with a new one and informed the complainant who in turn went to the second Opposite Party on 31.01.2014 for taking delivery without giving the work order bill.  The complainant was reluctant to hand over the work order and insisted warranty for another one year which was not acceded by the second Opposite Party.  It is further alleged by the opposity parties that normally, the customer has to hand over the original work order copy to the service centre and take the product after testing / verifying the same by expressing that the work done by the service centre is upto his satisfaction.  But the complainant has insisted a letter which is not legally correct. 

            9.         We have carefully considered the respective submissions and the document.  A perusal of Ex.C2 the work order dted 27.1.2014 would show that the MO purchased by the complainant on 21.02.2013 has some defects within the warranty period of one year.  Though the opposite parties stated in their reply version that  "the battery of MO was dry and it may due to not charging the battery as stated in the instruction manual", the OP2 has not mentioned anything about the complaint in the Ex.C2 work order.  Further, the OP2 contended that they have repaired the charger light within a day or two and the same was informed to the complainant who in turn came to their service centre on 31.1.2014 and demanded a letter for the satisfactory functioning of the MO.  To establish the above fact, the Opposite Party has not furnished any evidence that they have called the complainant for taking delivery of the MO1.  Only after filing the complaint, the opposite parties have brought the MO to this Forum at a later state.   The onus was upon the opposite parties that they have repaired the charger light and informed the same to the complainant.  It is to be further proved by the Opposite Parties that the MO was working properly and it had no defects and only the battery was dry.  The old battery was also not produced by the opposite parties.  We, therefore, hold that the charger light sold to the complainant was not utilized by the complainant being the delay caused by the Opposite Party.  Hence, the complainant established that the Opposite Parties have attributed the deficiency in service and Unfair trade practice.  The complainant proved his case.  Hence the opposite parties are liable for the same and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

            10.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to:

1. Return the sum of Rs. 1600/- being the cost of B.P.L. Charger Light to the complainant.
2. Pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. Pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

T

The Opposite Party is entitled to get back the MO1 the charger light after compliance of this order.

      Dated this the 1^st day of March 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1              16.09.2014                A.K. Ramadoss     

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS: 

RW1               19.03.2015                Ragupathy

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO1               Charger Light            - 1 no.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

                                                                                                    MEMBER