CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 314/2012
Tuesday, the 21st day of January, 2014
Petitioner : Joseph John,
Kavalam Puthupparambil,
Kurisummoodu P.O.
Changanacherry – 686 104.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Proprietor,
Techno Guard Industries.
Maruthanat SS Building,
Temple Road,
Chengannur – 689 121.
2) The Manager,
Thousand Lights,
Modiuzhathil Building,
I.T.I. Junction,
Chengannur – 689 121.
(Adv. Jomon Varghese)
O R D E R
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
The case of the petitioner filed on 30-10-2012, in brief as follows;
The petitioner is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner sees an inverter from the opposite party, who was having a stall in the ‘Parppidum’ Trade Fair conducted by the Malayala Manorama at Nagambadom in Kottayam. The petitioner was attracted by the lofty assurances given by the opposite party to purchase the inverter. Before purchasing the inverter, the petitioner was told by the opposite party that, the inverter can continuously work for 3 hours at the time of failure of electrical supply, the inverter feeds 5 tube lights, a fan and a Television; attracted and believing and believing their promises and assurances the petitioner booked an inverter and paid Rs.100/- as token advance on 25-12-2010. The opposite party supplied the inverter with the battery on 27-12-2010 at a price of 16,400/-. As per guarantee and warranty card, the inverter was having 24 months guarantee followed with 36 months warranty. Though, the opposite parties informed that, the inverter and the battery conformed to certain particular technical defects offered by the opposite parties are not correct and the petitioner feels ditched and cheated on that score too.
According to the petitioner, he could not put to use the inverter to the optimum capacity as assured by the opposite party, as there was no frequent power-cut during the period between 25th October 2010 to September 2012. Whenever the inverter was used, it was giving service only for 11 minutes when 5 tube lights, 7 fans and a Television set used. As the inverter was not measuring up to the assurance given by the opposite party, and the service was far below the assured service, the petitioner made a complaint before the opposite party on 26-08-2012. Thereupon the opposite party deputed Technicians to the petitioner and they attended the instrument. According to one of the technicians, the capacity of the battery was low. From that, the petitioner understood that, the instrument could not have given service for 3 hours as assured by the opposite party. However, they repaired the instrument and even after repair, it was giving service only for 16 minutes. As such, the petitioner gained made complaint to opposite party. The complainant was trying to contact to the opposite party in 3 telephone numbers of the opposite party, but of no answer. Thereupon the petitioner perused the guarantee cards very carefully and could find that, the opposite party had tampered with the labels. When, the petitioner came to know that, the opposite party had committed unfair trade practices and there was deficiency in service in their part, the petitioner filed the above complaint for the reliefs sought for in the complaint with compensation and cost.
The opposite parties filed versions sin short as follows;
The opposite parties could says that, ‘Techno Guards’ and ‘ Thousand Light’ two are one and the same. The opposite parties admitted the same and the duration of 3 hours of service of the inverter etc; but the opposite parties challenge that, the complaint is belated as the period of warranty for the battery as the period of warranty for the battery over and the petitioner has not lodged any complaint before the manufacturer of the battery within the warranty period of 24 months. The opposite parties had denied the allegations leveled against them. The opposite parties stated in the version that, the petitioner was deliberately with intention to tarnish the image and goodwill of the opposite parties, filed the said complaint and has no bonafides in the complaint. However, they undertake that, the opposite parties are ready and willing to undertake the repair of the inverter, but are not ready to undertake the defect with respect to the battery, as the petitioner is not lodged the complaint before the manufacturer of the battery ie. Exide Company. Hence, the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint with cost to them as there is no material in the complaint.
Based on the pleadings and contentions of the petitioner and the opposite parties, the following points arised for consideration;
- Whether the inverter and the battery were giving service to the petitioner as assured by the opposite party?
- Whether the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- As to the Reliefs and Costs?
There is no oral evidence. The evidence in this case, consists of chief and proof affidavit of the petitioner and the opposite parties. Ext. A1 to A5 marked on the side of the petitioner and no Exhibit is marked on the side of the opposite parties.
Point No.1 & 2
For the convenience, Point 1 & 2 can be considered together. As per the complaint and the chief and proof affidavit of the petitioner, the inverter was purchased and installed on 27-10-2010, the initial warranty for the inverter and the warranty for the battery is for, 24 months. The petitioner filed the above complaint on 30-10-2012. The petitioner had lodged the complaint early as September 2012. The warranty expires for the battery on 27-12-2012 and the warranty for the inverter expires on 5 years on 27-12-2015. The above dates can be seen in Ext. A3 and Ext.A4 as warranty card of Exide battery and user manual and warranty card of Techno Guard.
The version and the chief affidavit of the opposite parties also support the same. As such, it can be seen that, the complaint is filed in time and within the period of warranty.
The petitioner says that the opposite party has assured through their advertisements and also directly to him when he visited their Stall in the Trade fair at Nagampadam, Kottayam that, the inverter would work for 3 hours at the power failure for 5 tube lights, 4 fans, and a Television set. But it is stated in the complaint as well as the affidavit filed by the complainant that, he got the service only for 11 minutes when 5 tube lights, 4 fans and a Television set used. The complainant also made representation before the opposite parties about the deficiency in service and the short coming in the function of the inverter. The opposite parties deputed technicians and in spite of repair and maintenance, the inverter was giving service only for 16 minutes only that too for 5 tube lights, 4 fans and 1 television set used. It means that, the inverter was not measuring upto the standards as assured by the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that, the warranty card and the terms of the warranty card are different; as that of the years of warranty shown on the face page of the warranty card. In the warranty card of the face page it is clearly, categorically in bold letters terms that, the year of warranty is for 24 months; but inside the warranty card the terms or printed in very tiny letters deadly different to the warranty given on the face page. Further, at the time of negotiation, the petitioner would say, the opposite party at never informed the different terms contravening the years shown in the warranty card. From the above discussion, it can be clearly found that the inverter and the battery were not giving proper service to the petitioner, as assured by the opposite party. Can be clearly be seen from the modus operandi of the opposite party printing 24 months boldly on the warranty card on its first page, but giving different terms denying the year of warranty and printing in microscopic letters and advertising in public as if the opposite party is giving big benefits where as actually they are not giving the benefits as assured. This is clearly an unfair practice. So it can be seen that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice. So Point Nos. 1 and 2 are found in favour of the complaint.
Point No.3
On the above discussions and findings on Point No. 1 and 2 it is to be found that there is clear and transparent deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The inverter is still unserviceable. The complainant can’t use it till now such a situation occurred only due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. So Point No.3 is also found in favour of the complainant.
Point No.4
It is clearly found that, there is deficiency is service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay the cost or replace the inverter. The opposite party is also liable to pay compensation for the loss, mental stress and stain suffered and sustained by the complainant. According to the complainant the equipment of the opposite party is not worth service, it is below standard and not measuring upto the assured standards; hence the complainant would prefer cost.
1. In the result, the opposite party is ordered to pay 16,500/- as the cost of the inverter to the
complainant.
2. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as the cost of their litigation.
3. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. It not complied as directed, the petitioner is entitled for 12% interest for the award amount from the date of order till realization.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1 : Photocopy of Order Form (Tin No. c32041147162 dtd. 25-12-2010.
Ext.A2: Photocopy of cash bill (Thousand lights) dtd. 27-12-2010 (Rs. 16,399.99)
Ext.A3: Photocopy of user manual and warranty card of Techno Guard
Ext.A4: Photocopy of Exide Invaqueen battery warranty card.
Ext.A5: Photocopy of Exide invatubular (Registration for warranty)
By Order
Senior Superintendent
