SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019  seeking direction against the  OP to refund the amount of  Rs.10500/- towards the price of product and also pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant  .

Complaint in brief :-

 On 22/1/2021, complainant purchased 3 mode SDS pus hammer worth Rs.10500/- with a period of  2 year warranty from OP’s shop.  After the purchase, 4 times the  complainant   faced  difficulty in using the product and on the 4^th time, OPs  demanded Rs.1400/- from complainant to rectify the defect of the  tool.  The complainant constrained to file the complaint because of the hardship he faced.  Hence this complaint.

         After filing this complaint, commission has sent notice  to  OPs and  OPs received  the notice and  entered  appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly.

Version of   OP in brief:

    The OPs denied the entire allegation except specifically admitted.  The OPs are the managing partners of  Union tools service centre .  The purchase of harmer tool and  its warranty of 2 years are admitted by OP’s .  According to OPs, power tool is manufactured by company viz “Stanley Black and Decker India Pvt.Ltd and  the OPs are only  the dealer.  The OPs contended that warranty will be provided only for defective parts and not for any defects arise due to wear and tear or accidents.  The OPs rectified  the defect for free of cost except the last defect.  The defect was with gear and it caused  due to improper usage of machinery by complaint.  According to OPs, the gear of the product was damaged  because of the switching over from one option to another while the machine is in operation, without turning it off.  Moreover, the OPs raised the contention of  non joinder of necessary party and the  defect caused due to the  misuse of  complainant and  hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of  OP?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 &A2,  Ext.A1 is the photo copy  of tax invoice which is marked as subject proof and Ext.A2 is the service slip issued by OPs. The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1. OPs produced one document which is marked as Ext.B1, the warranty terms and conditions .  OPs adduced evidence through  proof affidavit and examined as DW1.  Complainant has not cross examined by OPs.

   Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.

Issue No.1

   On the perusal of documents produced by both parties, commission looked into the issues in detail.  As per Ext.A1, which was marked as  subject  to proof, the purchase of the object is clear and  the purchase is not disputed.  As per Ext.B1 it is seen that the defect persisted in warranty period.  On the perusal of Ext.A2 dtd.27/3/2021 which was issued by OPs for servicing the tool, the complainant had made an averment with regard to the frequent defects of the tools after purchase  but produced only Ext.A2.  The date of Ext.A2 reveals that the defect arise within the  warranty period.  Moreover, during the cross-examination, complainant deposed that the defect caused not because of mishandling of machine.  However, there is no expert opinion taken  in this  case, it is obvious, that the tool got defected under the warranty period  and  the OPs are liable to rectify the defect.  There is no evidence to prove that there is  manufacturing defect.  So non-joinder  of necessary party will not lie.  However the issue No.1 is answered  in favour of complainant.

Issue No.2:

   Complainant is entitled to get compensation due to the deficiency in service from the part of OPs.  Hence issue No.2 is answered in favour of complainant.

           In the result complaint is allowed in part, the opposite parties are directed to rectify  the defect of tools  as free of cost  within  two  weeks from the date of   copy of order, if the defect is curable otherwise the opposite parties are directed to refund the purchase amount of Rs.10500/-  to the complainant.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay  Rs.3000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings to the complainant  within 30 days of receipt of this order.  Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against  opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Tax invoice

A2 Service slip

B1- Warranty terms and  conditions

PW1-Prakasan.T-Complainant

DW1-Aboobacker- 1^st OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR