Complainant case is follows:
Complainant is an ex-service man. He purchased an auto electric cooker manufactured by the third opposite party from the first opposite party on 11.07.2006. for a price of Rs.1680.96/-. The second opposite party issued a guarantee card for the said cooker provided by the third opposite party. According to the petitioner the purchase was effected just before when the canteen was closed for lunch break and there was heavy rush on the counter. The complaint alleged that the first opposite party delivered the good in a hurry and he did not give the complainant an opportunity to inspect the product. When the complainant opened the pack at home, he found that the body of the cooker was damaged and it -2- was manufactured in July 2004, 2 years prior to the date of purchase. The complainant approached the second opposite party for replacing the said cooker but they refused to replace the same. The complainant states that the third opposite party has stopped the production of its electrical and electronic division long back. He alleges that the act of the first and second opposite parties in selling the defective cooker of the third opposite party even after the stoppage of production of the same amounts to deficiency in service. Forced by these circumstances he filed the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the defective cooker or refund the price of the cooker and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.
Opposite party No 1, 2 and 3 received notice. Second opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Whereas first and third opposite parties remained absent. So they were set expartee.
The second opposite party opposed the complaint on the following main points.
(i) The item purchased by the complainant was supplied in factory packed case. (ii) All the purchasers are required to inspect the articles purchased by them from the canteen before the settlement of the bill as there has been strict guidelines that any claim for discrepancies of general stores will not be intended after purchase. The article was guaranteed against manufacturing defects but the alleged defect was not a manufacturing defect and it might have happened due to his negligent handling.
-3- According to the second opposite party the complaint is vexatious and prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to the opposite parties.
Points for consideration are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Reliefs and costs.
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the petitioner and seconds opposite party and exhibits A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No.1.
The complainant alleged that when the packing of the product was removed at home the complainant came to know of the fact that the body of the auto electric cooker is irreparably damaged. The complainant further alleged that the said article was manufactured in July 2004, 2 years prior to the date of purchase. He again alleged that continuing the trade of products even after the stoppage of its production amounts to deficiency in service.
The opposite party denied the allegation that the purchased item was defective. The second opposite party submitted that all the purchasers are required to inspect the articles purchased by them before the settlement of the bill. The opposite party again submitted that the guarantee card for the article purchased was kept inside the equipments and it could be taken only after opening the packing and also the equipments and there was no possibility of the alleged defect escaping the notice of the complainant. -4- According to the opposite party the alleged defect was not a manufacturing defect.
The consumer purchased an auto electric cooker from the first opposite party on 11-07-2006 for a price of Rs.1680.96/- manufactured by the third opposite party. The manufacturer of the said article offered warranty for one year and issued a warranty card. This warranty card is produced and marked as exhibit A2. The bill dated 11-07-2006 is marked as Exhibit A1. As per the averment of the complainant the purchased item was found to be defective on the day of purchase itself. If a new article is defective on the date of purchase itself, the consumer would not be satisfied. The defect may not be a major one but the consumer loses satisfaction. As per exhibit A1 bill the complainant purchased 13 items from the first opposite party. He raised complaint about the tenth item of purchase only. No consumer in ordinary and normal course take up the matter with manufactures or sellers of an article so vigourously.
In order to inculcate high standard of quality, purity or potency of the article or the goods sold to the consumer, the legislature has prescribed the definition of world 'defect' by 2(1)(f) of the Act as under.
“any fault, imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods”.
As per the aforesaid definition the trader and the manufacturer has the obligation to sell the goods, free from any -5- fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality and standard. After purchasing a brand new article, if the consumer is required to approach the trader or manufacturer time and again for removing one or the other defect, the trader or manufacturer cannot escape from the liability of compensating the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him for having been sold defective article. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the first and third opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not replacing the defective rice cooker. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1, the complaint is allowed.
Since the third opposite party had stopped the production of auto electric rice cooker, a direction for replacement is not feasible. In the result the petition is ordered as follows. The first and third opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complaint a sum of Rs.1680.96/- within a period of 6 weeks from today failing which the said sum will carry interest at 9% p.a. till payment. The first and third opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation. This order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
