DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of January 2018
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of filing: 29/07/2017
(C.C.No.110/2017)
Mohammed Sakir.A.K,
S/o Kunjukethil,
Ayyaril House, Nandankizhaya,
Muthalamada, Anamari (PO),
Kollengode, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad District. - Complainant
(Adv.K.K.Sudheer)
V/s
Vijayan,
Prop: Grihalakshmi,
Sreelakshmi Complex,
Pollachi Road, Kollengode,
Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad. - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
The complaint in brief is as follows.
The complainant purchased from opposite party on 08.03.2017 “Kenstar Air Cooler” for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) . The product has one year warranty and the warranty card signed by the opposite party with his seal is also given to the complainant. According to the complainant, from 26.04.2017, the above cooler was not working and this matter was informed to the opposite party by phone. Then a person from the opposite party shop inspected the cooler and informed the complainant that the cooler suffered from tank leakage and only by removing the same the cooler could be made in working condition. Then on many occasions, the said person told the complainant to change the cooler by contacting the opposite party. Many times complainant contacted the opposite party, but, no action was taken by him. According to the complainant at the time of purchasing the cooler, the opposite party had informed the complainant to call him if any problem occurred to the product during the warranty period upto 08.03.2018 and the same would be remedied by the opposite party. The mechanic of the opposite party told the complainant that for tank leakage replacement was the only remedy and the opposite party has to replace the disputed cooler and the complainant has full right to get replacement of the said cooler within the warranty period without any expense, but according to the complainant, opposite party did not take any step to repair the cooler or to replace the same. Showing all these, complainant caused to sent a lawyer notice dated.07.06.2017 to the opposite party, but, the same was returned undelivered saying that the address was not correct. According to the complainant, at the time of purchasing the air cooler, the son of the opposite party was in the shop who delivered the cooler. Registered notice was also sent to the address of the opposite party shown in the bill, but the notice was returned knowing the contents intentionally. Complainant pleads that opposite party sold the disputed cooler to the complainant with an intention to cheat him purposefully. Through enquiry it could be understood that opposite party is the owner of the shop and not his son. Hence the complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to either repair the cooler removing all its defects or to replace the cooler and give Rs.20,000/- to the complainant including Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony.
The complaint was admitted and notice was sent to opposite party to enter appearance and file version. Notice to opposite party was served, their name called absent and they were set ex-parte.
The documents filed on the side of the complainant consisted of chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 which were marked. A commission was also taken whose report was marked as Ext.C1. Complainant was also heard.
The following issues are framed in this case
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- If so, the relief and cost which the complainant is entitled to?
Issues No.1 & 2
The case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant purchased from opposite party “Kenstar Air Cooler” on 08.03.2017 as per
invoice no.1883 marked as Ext.A1 which shows description of goods purchased, tax amount Rs.5,500/-, total amount Rs.5,500/- etc. The product has one year warranty and the owner’s manual is marked as Ext.A2 which indicates technical specifications, advantages of Kenstar Air Cooler, safety precautions, one year warranty for the product from the date of purchase etc. According to the complainant, from 26.04.2017 the above air cooler was not working and this was informed to the opposite party. A technician from the opposite party shop inspected the cooler and informed the complainant that, the disputed cooler suffered from tank leakage and asked the complainant to change the cooler by contacting the opposite party. According to the complainant, although many times opposite party was contacted by him, no action was taken by the opposite party to repair the cooler or to replace the same. A lawyer notice dated.07.06.2017 was also caused to be sent to the opposite party showing all these but the same was returned undelivered stating that the address was not correct. A copy of lawyer notice and postal receipt are marked as Ext.A3 series which show that lawyer notice was sent to the opposite party. The returned notice with cover and acknowledgement card were marked as Ext.A4 series which show return of notice by the opposite party. The expert commissioner was appointed to report the condition of the cooler and he conducted the joint inspection on 22.11.2017 along with the complainant and opposite party’s representative. His inferences show that the cooler is having leakage of water due to a defect of the cooler and the performance of cooler was only 33.33% as against normal range of about 50 to 70%. The inspection report marked as Ext.C1 carries the observations that water is found leaking outside through the joint above the water tank on the right side of the suction filter, water is flowing down through the gap between the net filter and filter element and which is found excessive when comparing the other side and the inner filter element was not properly sealed.
From the inferences and observations made by the expert commissioner in his inspection report and other documents produced, we understand that the air cooler supplied by the opposite party to the complainant is seen to be defective. It is also observed that within 50 days of the date of purchase, the cooler was seen to be non working. We have also understood that inspite of contacting the opposite party several times by the complainant and sending a lawyer notice to him, opposite party is seen not having taken any step for repairing the air cooler or to replace the same. Again, it is also observed that the expert commissioner has noted the defects of the air cooler in his report and the air cooler has become non working during the existence of the one year warranty period for the product. In the light of the all of the above, we view that opposite party has committed grave deficiency in service and by supplying a defective product opposite party is also seen to have committed unfair trade practice. The result is that complaint is allowed.
We direct the opposite party to replace the defective air cooler with a fresh properly working same brand air cooler within 30 days of the receipt of this order; if not, opposite party is directed to pay invoice price of the cooler of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) within 30 days of the receipt of this order. In addition, we also order the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and towards litigation expense incurred by the complainant. We also order that after the execution of the order complainant should return to the opposite party the disputed defective Kenstar air cooler immediately.
This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to receive interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of January 2018.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Abstract
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Retail Invoice receipt No.1883 dated.08.03.2017 issued by the
opposite party
Ext.A2 - Owners manual of Ken-star Air Cooler
Ext.A3 - Copy of lawyer notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party
dated.07.06.2017 and postal receipt
Ext.A4 - Notice with cover returned undelivered along with acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party
Nil
Commission Report
Ext.C1 - Expert commissioner’s report dated.04.12.2017
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost and compensation for mental agony - Rs.2,000/-
