DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K,Member
Date of filing:28/11/2018
CC/155/2018
M.K.Salim - Complainant
S/o Kunju Pillai,
New Galaxy Metal,
Adakkaputhur,Vellinezhi,
Cherpulassery,Palakkad.
(By Adv. B.Ravikumar)
Vs
1. The Manager,M/s A.V.Solar World, - Opposite Parties
Opp.Valluvanad Hospital,
Kanniyampuram,Ottapalam Taluk,
Palakkad- 679 104.
(Exparte)
2. The Manager,
M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd
Corporate Office,Plot No.150,
Sector 44, Gurgaon,Haryana- 122 003.
(By Adv.Manoj Ambat)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A. , Member
1. Complaint pleadings in brief.
The complainant is the owner of ‘New Galaxy Metal’ Adakkaputhur, Palakkad and he is earning his livelihood from the income deriveqd from that shop and his family is also dependant on the income of the complainant. On 22/05/2017 he purchased one inverter(3.5 KV) and four PC batteries(150AH) from the 1st opposite party with brand name ‘Luminous’ manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.80,800/-. The technicians installed the inverter and the batteries on the same day. Within few months of its purchase, it showed some defects. When the inverter was working, 14 CC TV cameras, one DVR, one 32 inch LED TV etc. were totally damaged and the lights were blinking which caused much inconvenience. The complainant had to replace these items with new ones. He informed the 1st opposite party about the defect and they asked him to register a complaint in the Toll free number of 2nd opposite party. As per their advice, he booked a complaint with the 2nd opposite party, but there was no response. He again booked a complaint on 07/06/2018 and a technician came and inspected the premises and opined without examining the unit that it may be due to the defect in the wiring of the building. So the complainant checked the wiring of the building and found that there was no fault in the wiring. This matter was communicated to the 1st opposite party and they assured to send service persons to rectify the defect in the inverter and batteries, but nobody came for inspection or repair. Thereafter on May, 2018 the inverter stopped working and when informed in the Toll free Number, they assured to send a technician. The technician, after inspection and service, informed the complainant that he has changed the circuit board of the inverter. Since the problems persisted , he again lodged complaint. On 19/11/2018, a technician came and checked the entire system and told that there is some complaint in the back up system of the inverter and promised to repair, but they did not repair or replace it.
The inverter has 2 years warranty and the Batteries have 3 ½ years warranty. But the opposite parties were not ready to inspect it and rectify the defect. Since they failed to give effective service during the warranty period, the complainant had suffered inconvenience, mental and physical agony for which the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant.
The complainant contends that the inverter is having manufacturing defect and not working properly immediately after few months of its purchase.
Hence this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to replace the inverter and batteries with new ones or to refund its cost with 18% interest and to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for the damages to the electrical equipments caused due to the defective products and to pay 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and other inconveniences together with cost.
2. Complaint was admitted and registered notices were issued to both opposite parties. Even after receipt of notice, 1st opposite party did not appear and so they were set exparte. 2nd Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. 2nd Opposite party’s contentions in their version:-
2nd Opposite party admits that the complainant bought one inverter and four batteries manufactured by them from the 1st opposite party. The complainant had booked a complaint in their toll free number and it was properly attended by their technicians. On inspection, it was found that there was fault with the wiring in the premises and it had nothing to do with the inverter and the batteries. Even though the technicians informed the complainant to rectify the defect in the wiring, the complainant did not care to do it.
They denied the complainant’s contention that after checking, the technician informed the complainant that there was some complaint with the back up of the inverter and also denied the complainant’s contention of manufacturing defect in the inverter. Further they stated that the complainant himself admitted that he is using the premises for business purposes and hence does not come under the ambit of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and additional affidavit along with documents. The documents were marked as Ext A1 to A10 and complainant’s evidence was closed. All the documents are objected to by the opposite party’s counsel on the ground that they are issued in the name of a different entity.’ New Galaxy Metals’. The 2nd Opposite party filed chief affidavit in evidence. As it is clear that New Galaxy Metals is a proprietary concern owned , managed and administered by the complainant , the objections put forward by the counsel for opposite party is overruled .
Ext B1 marked from their side (subject to objection that it is a copy). In the absence of any evidence to show that Exhibit B1 is forged and due to the ground that the principles of Evidence Act are not to be adhered to by this Commission , Exhibit B1 is taken on evidence .
Even though it seen exhibits A9 (a) and A9 (b) are seen marked as two separate documents, it is a single documents with two sheets. Hence exhibits A 9 (a) and A9 (b) are taken to be a single document.
5. Main points arising for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for ?
4. Reliefs, if any.
Point No.1
6. The 2nd Opposite party’s contention is that complainant himself has admitted that he is using the premises for business purposes and so he does not come within the ambit of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant stated in his affidavit that he is the owner of ‘New Galaxy Metals’ and he is earning his livelihood from this concern and his family is also depending on the income derived from this business concern . This shows that he is the proprietor of the proprietary business concern ‘New Galaxy Metal’ which he conducts for earning his livelihood. No contra evidence is forthcoming. So the complainant is well within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
7. Point No. 2
2nd Opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased one inverter of 3.5 KV and four PC batteries of 150 A.H from the 1st opposite party. As per the complainant, within few months of its installation, it showed some defects in its working and he informed about this to 1st opposite party and they advised him to book complaint in the Toll free number of the 2nd opposite party.
8. 2nd Opposite party also admits that the complainant had contacted them in the Toll free number for the problems he has been facing with the functioning of inverter and batteries. Further they contended that, on receipt of this complaint, the 2nd opposite party’s technician inspected the inverter and the batteries and found that there was no fault in the inverter and batteries. The technician found that problems in the inverter and the batteries are due to the defect in the wiring in the complainant’s premise and they asked the complainant to rectify the defect in the wiring which he failed to do.
9. In reply to this , the complainant had stated that as per the technician’s findings, he tested the wiring of the building and the same was found to be proper. All the defects occurred were due to the defective and substandard product supplied by the opposite parties.
10. Apart from pleadings, no relevant evidence is forthcoming from both parties to substantiate their contentions. Complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product manufactured & supplied by the opposite parties. But there is no expert’s report to support his claim. He has not taken out any Expert Commission to prove the defects in the inverter and batteries. It is incumbent on the complainant to prove and substantiate through expert opinion his allegation regarding manufacturing defect. The complainant not having done this, his allegation regarding manufacturing defect remains unsubstantiated .
In Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Hashmukh Laxmi Chand [(2009) 3CPJ 229], the Hon’ble National Commission held that “manufacturing defect is more than an ordinary defect which can be cured by replacing the defect; is fundamental basic defect which creeps while manufacturing the machine. To prove such defect opinion of an expert is necessary”.
So in the absence of expert’s report or any patent or apparent evidence, we cannot allow the prayer of the complainant to replace the inverter and batteries or to refund its cost.
11. Since the product is under warranty, the opposite parties are bound to give proper and effective service to the complainant. The 1st opposite party being the dealer of the product is also responsible to attend the problems in the product and to provide proper service. Even after the receipt of notice, they did not appear and were set exparte. Complainant states that when he informed about the complaint, 1st opposite party promised to send service person for checking, but failed to do . On May 2018, the inverter stopped working and he informed the 2nd opposite party through their Toll free number and a mechanic told after inspection that he has changed the circuit board. But after that the inverter completely stopped and in-spite of their assurance to send technician to rectify the defect, nothing happened. Even though the 2nd opposite party contended that their technician never opined as stated above and there was no fault in the inverter and batteries as alleged by the complainant, they failed to prove that the inverter and batteries are defect free. In order to prove their defense of defect in the wiring of complainant’s premise, they could have tested it with another inverter. But other than the submission of defective wiring, nothing was done by the opposite parties to prove their stand.
12. The opposite parties did not move any application to cross examine the complainant to disprove the contention of deficiency in service on their part of the opposite parties in not giving effective and efficient service to the complainant. Despite the denial, no evidence is brought by the opposite parties.
13. Since the product is under warranty ,we are not inclined to accept the defence put forward by the opposite party without sufficient supportive evidence . So we conclude that the opposite parties failed to give proper service to the complainant in repairing the product or replacing it under warranty and there is deficiency in service on their part.
Points 2 & 3
As per the complaint, because of the defects in the inverter, many of the electrical equipments in the complainant’s premise got damaged and he had to change these equipments. Further, blinking of lights due to the defective inverter caused much inconvenience. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the damages and financial loss on account of that.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.
We direct the opposite parties to repair the inverter and batteries free of cost or in the alternative to give Rs.30,000/- as cost of the repair.
We further direct the opposite parties 1 &2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the Deficiency in service on their part and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and other inconveniences suffered and 5,000/-as cost of this litigation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of June, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Luminous user guide with warranty details No.3CG915C1036880 Dated 22/05/2017
Ext A2- Luminous warranty card No.84H344E1514733.
Ext A3- Luminous warranty card No.84H344E1514737.
Ext A4- Luminous warranty card No.D4H344E1523631.
Ext A5- Luminous warranty card No.B4H344E1520342.
Ext A6-Original Retail invoice dated 22/05/2017 for Rs.80,800/- .
Ext A7- Office copy of lawyer notice, postal receipts(Two in number) and A/D card
dated 09/10/2018 of the 1st opposite party .
Ext A8- Invoice No.119 dated 20/05/2016
Ext A9 (a) - Invoice No.142 dated 10.08.2016 page 1
Ext A9 (b)- Invoice No. 142 dated 10.08.2016 page 2
Ext A10- Service bill bearing No. 818 dated 17.08.2016
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext B1- Authorisation
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: Rs.5000/-
