Complainantby filing this complaint has alleged that complainant purchased one Roti Maker on 24.08.2013 (Model No.KRM901B) manufactured by op no.1 but it was purchased through its authorized dealers op no.2 vide Tax Invoice No. 7361 dated 24.08.2013 and during operating the said Roti Maker at home it was found that the same was not functioning properly. Roties are not properly made and they failed to use the said Roti Maker for the purpose of making roties in their family.  So, complainant talked with op no.1 and its customer care but customer care reported that warranty card are not recognized.  So, complainant sent E-mail on 26.08.2013 through website of the op no.1 but op did not take any action.

          But ultimately at the intervention of op no.2 one official of op no.1 called the complainant on 02.09.2013 to enquire about the nature of complaint and when the complainant explained his difficulty being faced by the family members in operating the said Roti Maker the said official refused to give any relief of defect of the product without assigning any reasons.

          Thereafter on 02.09.2013 one engineer of op visited the house of the complainant and he also expressed his inability to give light to the Roti Maker by making bread through the said machine.  Thereafter complainant sent an E-mail to the Managing Director & Vice Chairman of opno.1 on 04.09.2013 expecting of some result but bad luck of the complainant is that op no.1 did not show any minimum curse and did not give any relief and in the above circumstances, for selling defective, sub-standard product to the consumer and for adopting unfair trade practice complainant has filed this complaint for manufacturing defect etc. against the ops for relief.

          On the other hand the notices were served upon the ops and it was duly served to SreeAmbalika Stores on 09.10.2013 and to Khaitan Electricals Ltd. on 09.10.2013 which is evident from the internet postal result tag with the present case record but Khaitan Electricals Ltd. appeared by filing Vokalatnama appointing one Lawyer of Pankaj Singh, but ultimately that op also did not file any objection for which the case is heard exparte.

          Decision with reasons

          On thorough study of the complaint including the materials it is clear that complainant purchased one Khaitan Roti Maker on 24.08.2013 from SreeAmbalika Stores at a cost of Rs.1,550/- paying VAT also.  Along with said item Tax Invoice, warranty Card were issued by the Ambalika Stores and it was warranty of KhaitanElectricals Ltd. wherefrom it is found that model of Roti Maker was KRM901B, Sl. No. 2013-4-557 having purchase date 24.08.2013 and warranty is for one year it is fact that complainant reported the matter i.e. the said Roti Maker is not working and not preparing any roti.  So, complainant sent a letter lastly to the Vice Chairman of Managing Director of Khaitan Electricals Ltd. on 04.09.2013.  But fact remains that he did not get any result and at the same time the seller also did not help him and finding no other alternative he was compelled to file this complaint. 

          After hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and also considering the letter dated 04.09.2013 addressed to Vice Chairman Managing Director M/s Khaitan Electricals Ltd. we are convinced that complainant reported his grievance to the highest authority of the Khaitan India Electricals Ltd. and also reported to the present seller op but none took any step and it is also evident from the said letter that one engineer of the company also visited the house of the complainant on 02.09.2013 but he also failed to operate it by making a single bread through the Roti Maker.  But even then the said Roti Maker has not been replaced by the ops and no doubt ops got such chance to contest this case when notices were duly served upon them and when Khaitan Company appeared by filing Vokalatnama but did not contest and in the above situation relying upon the documents and letters as sent by the complainant to the op Khaitan India Electricals Ltd. we are convinced to hold that ops did not respond against the grievance of the complainant and fact remains that the engineer of the op Khaitan Company also failed to make a single bread by using the said Roti Maker on 02.09.2013.

          So, in view of the above fact and materials defect of the Roti Maker is well proved and for which complainant is entitled to get relief for the ops inaction and negligent and deficient manner of service and at the same time it is well proved that there is manufacturing defect in respect of the said Roti Maker for which both the ops are liable to replace the Roti Maker or shall have to return the entire amount with compensation and litigation cost as prayed by the complainant.

          Thus, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on exparte against the ops with a cost of Rs.2,000/- each.

          Ops are directed to refund the price of Roti Maker i.e. Rs.1,550/- or to replace it with a defect free certificate of a new Roti Maker after taking back the defective Roti Maker from the complainant and also shall have to pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant for harassing the complainant by the ops.     

          Ops are directed to comply the order within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay each op shall have to pay Rs.50/- per day as punitive damages till full satisfaction of the decree what shall be deposited to this Forum.

          Ops are directed to comply the order and for violation of the Forums order they shall be prosecuted and even a penalty of Rs.10,000/- shall be imposed against them each for which they shall be liable.