IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of April , 2012
Filed on 08-06-2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.196/2011
Between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties |
Sri.Johny Varghese, Mukkom House, Chungam, Pazhaveed. P.O, Alappuzha | 1. The Manager, Honda Siel Power Products Limited Plot No.5, Sector -41, Kasna, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area . Distt .. Gautam Budh Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. Area Manager . Honda Siel Power Products Limited Door no.36/2962B, Kaloor, Kadavanthra Road, Ernakulam, Cochin - 682 017 (Adv. T.G. Sanal Kumar ) 3. Proprietor Melam Parambil Agencies Melam Parambil Chambers, Podiyadi P.O. Thiruvalla 689 110 (Extension) 4. Melam Parambil Agencies Nehru Trophy Finishing Point Alappuzha - 688 013 ( By Adv. Sivadas ) 5. Manager. QRS Retail Limited West of YMCA Junction ,Alleppey - 688 001 |
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:- The complainant on 25th November 2011 purchased a generator for an amount of Rs.163000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty three thousand only ) from the opposite parties, Right from the purchase of the said generator, the same was nonfunctioning or malfunctioning. On a number of occasions, the equipment was taken to the opposite parties to rectify its mistake. Many a time, the service staff from the opposite parties visited the complainant’s premises to repair the recurrent shortcoming of the system. The opposite parties even charged beyond Rs.12000/- ( Rupees twelve thousand only ) from the complainant. Strangely still, the condition of the material article remained unchanged. When the complainant realized that the system was of inherent defect, the complainant required the opposite parties to replace the incorrigible system. The 5th opposite party impressed upon the complainant that the panel board of the generator was to be replaced, and the same would cost Rs.35000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand only ). The generator set is being kept with the 5th opposite party. The 5th opposite party took the work stating ’engine stuck’ in the work order. The complainant could never properly or peacefully use the system. The opposite parties sold to the complainant the generator system having inherent defect. The complainant has to sustain a loss of Rs.I63000/-(Rupees one lakhsixty three thousand only ). The opposite parties’ service is deficient, and the complainant was put to untold mental agony. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite parties turned up before this Forum and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite parties is that the complainant has successfully used the generator for more than 3240 hours, until 23rd May 2011. Thereafter the generator was entrusted with the 5th opposite party with the defect ’engine stuck’. The 5th opposite party detected that the PCB board of the set out of order, and the same was replaced on charging its bill, and the complainant took delivery of the system subsequent to the filing of the complaint. According to the opposite party, the alleged defect was on expiry of the warranty period. What is more, the material article was being on the top of the boat exposed to inclement weather, the opposite parties contend. The opposite parties provided effective and prompt service to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The intention of the complainant is to make illegal enrichment . The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, affidavits and counter affidavits were filed.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are :-
(a) Whether the generator set the complainant purchased from the opposite party is of manufacturing defect ?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ?
5. We carefully analyzed the evidence placed on record before us by the parties. The complainant’s, case as it appears is that since the purchase of the generator system, the same was repeatedly displaying discouraging defects. The complainant emphatically asserts that the opposite parties procured a total amount of Rs.48000/-(Rupees forty eight thousand only ) from the complainant. The contention of the opposite party is that warranty was provided to the generator. However, according to the opposite parties. the defect alleged surfaced on expiry or the warranty period. It is significant to notice that the alleged defect as to the PCB board is or course, beyond the period of warranty. As we have already observed, the complainant has forcefully asserts that right from the very purchase, the material article was malfunctioning, and the opposite party charges more than Rs.12000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only ) excluding the charge levied for PCB board replacement. Seemingly, it is worthy of notice that the opposite parties have not made any serious attempt to deny or dispute the said aspect. In the light of this backdrop, we are of the firm view that the material article developed imperfection since the initial stages of its purchase and the complainant was compelled to take the same to the opposite party for service now and again. The opposite parties, in the premises of their assertive non-denial it is to be presumed that they must have charged the complainant for every service rendered even when warranty was in force. Obviously, the complainant is entitled to relief
6. In the wake of what have been elaborated supra, the 3rd and the 4lh opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs,10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only ) with 9% interest to the complainant as compensation till the recovery of the same and pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only ) as costs. The opposite party shall comply with the ’order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April , 2012.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Exbt.A1 -Retail Invoice
Exbt.A2 -Booklet
Exbt.A3 - Broshow
Exbt.A4 -Work Order
Exbt.A5 -Retail Invoice
Evidence of the Opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
