IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 25th day of February 2010 CC/267/2009 Ramachandsran Master ‘Athira’ Kumbham, P.O.Koodali. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.T.V.Haridasan) 1. M/s.Royal Stoves, M.P.Road, S.M.Street, Calicut 2. Royal Stoves, C/o.Thana Electrical, Mathurubhumi Daily7, NearOpp.Jumayath Mosque, Thana, Kannur. 3. Grihasree Agencies Service Centre, Opposite parties 1st floor, M.M.Complex, Near Sankaracharya computer centre, Kannur. O R D E R Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member This is a complaint field under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3950/- as purchase price and Rs.1800/- as compensation. The averment of the complaint is as follows: the opposite party is conducting and selling gas stove and its accessories. 1st opposite party is the company 2nd opposite party is the authorized dealer and 3rd opposite party is the service centre of dealing in gas stove and its accessories. On 28.11.08 complainant placed an order for the gas stove with burner ‘Tricook Step’ from the Mela conducted by opposite party at Kannur. He paid Rs.500/- as advance for that stove. On 29.11.08 opposite party delivered the stove at his residence by exchanging the old stove for Rs.1000/- and received the balance amount of Rs.2450/-. Opposite party received a total sum of Rs.3450/- for the stove. At the time of delivery 1st opposite party assured that the stove is of superior quality and if any defects occur 2nd and 3rd opposite party will be available for repairs. Opposite party hasgiven 2 years guarantee and 5 years free service. After two days 2 burners became defunct. The complainant approached the opposite party in the mela and reported the defects. So the stove is kept idle but the opposite party did not cured the defects. Hence this complaint. After receiving the complaint Forum sent notices to opposite parties but opposite parties not accepted the notices. Subsequently on 4.12.09 petition filed for publication and it was allowed. Thus on 15.1.2010 publication produced by the complainant. Thereafter the opposite parties were called absent and set exparte. On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parities? 3. Relief and cost? Issue No.1. The fact that on 28.11.08 1st opposite party con ducted a mela and 1st opposite party sold a gas stove with Burner Tri cook step and complainant paid Rs.500/- as advance for that stove. On 29.11.08 opposite party delivered the stove at the residence of the compliant by exchanging the old stove for Rs.1000/- and received the balance amount of Rs.2450. Thus opposite party received Rs.3450/- for the stove. Ext.A1 bill shows that complainant paid a total sum of Rs.3950/- as consideration for the stove. Complaint purchased the stove for consideration and thus complainant is definitely a consumer. Issue No.2 Even though opposite party assured to the complaint that the stove is of superior quality and if any defects occur 2nd and 3rd opposite parties will be available for repair. Complainant was given 2 years guarantee and 5years free service. After two days of purchase 2 burners did not function and complainant approached the opposite party in the mela and reported defects. But opposite party has not cured the defects. It s important to note that the defect occurred immediately after the purchase. But opposite party has not taken any interest to rectify the defects. It is also important to note that opposite party remained absent throughout the proceedings before the Forum. Since notice was properly served it is definite that opposite party has been purposefully kept away from the proceedings. Hence the available evidence shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Issue No.2 is answered infavour of the complainant. Issue No.3 The complainant produced Ext.A1 bill which shows that the complainant paid Rs.3950/- for the stove. Opposite parties assured the complainant that the stove is of superior quality and if any defects occur 2nd and 3rd opposite parties will be available for repair. Opposite party promised 2 years guarantee also. But immediately after two days burners became defunct. Under such situation the consumer will suffer much mental pain. Hence the opposite parties are not only liable to refund the purchase price but also have to pay compensation for mental agony and other losses suffered by the complainant. Hence we are of opinion that opposite party is liable to refund Rs.3950/- as purchase price and a sum of Rs1000/- as compensation together with an amount of Rs.500/- as cost of these proceedings to the complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.3950/- (Rupees Three thousand Nine hundred and fifty only)as purchase price and a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only)as compensation together with an amount of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against opposite parties under the provisions of the consumer protection act. Complainant has to return the stove on receiving the amount. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Bill issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite parties: nil Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
