BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 26/06/2010

Date of Order : 31/05/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 631/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. In essence, the case of the complainant is as follows :

At the instance of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant had purchased a 90 cm. glass hood for an amount of Rs. 13,170/-. The 1^st opposite party came to install the same on 25-09-2010. It was then found that the requirements there is only of 60 c.m. glass hood. The workers of the opposite party unpacked the same and offered to replace the same. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 27-09-2010 to replace the 90 c.m. glass hood with a 60 c.m. One. But they failed to honour their own words. The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the 90 c.m. glass hood with a 60 c.m. glass hood and to get refund of the difference in price together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :

The complainant purchased a 90 c.m. chimney from the 1^st opposite party on 02-07-2010. Thereafter only during the 3^rd week of September, did the complainant request the 1^st opposite party to install the product in his premises. When the 1^st opposite party's personnel went there to install the chimney, there was only 82 c.m. gap between the wall cabinets where the chimney was proposed to be fixed. Thus, the complainant opts for a 60 c.m. chimney. The complainant ought to have taken measurement of the chimney before ordering purchase of the chimney. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party :-

The complaint is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is the authorised dealer of the 2^nd opposite party. There are no specific allegations made by the complainant against the 2^nd opposite party. Further, there is no allegation of the existence of any manufacturing defect in the product.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2^nd opposite party. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the 90 c.m. glass hood with a 60 c.m. one and to get refund of the difference in price?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

6. Point No. i. :- Ext. A1 receipt dated 02-07-2010 goes to show that the complainant purchased a 90 c.m. glass hood from the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs. 13,170/- which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. According to the complainant, the technician of the 1^st opposite party took the measurement to erect the glass hood. It was stated that if at all any difference in size were there the opposite party is contractually liable to replace the same. On the contrary, the 1^st opposite party contends that the complainant himself took the measurement of the glass hood and later he informed that he could not erect the same, since the gap provided to fix the same is not sufficient to fix the 90 c.m. glass hood supplied as per request.

7. Though the complainant contended that the staff of the 1^st opposite party took the measurement of the area to which the hood is to be fixed, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. During evidence, the complainant admitted that he has not stated the same in Ext. A2 lawyer notice. It is pertinent to note that the complainant does not have a case that the product suffers from any kind of manufacturing defect either. In that view of the matter, the complainant is not entitled to get replacement of the glass hood of the chimney. Admittedly, the 2^nd opposite party is a reputed company in the filed of kitchen appliances. It would go against them were they to neglect an onus and opportunity to serve a customer. So, it is in their cause to see to the grievances of this complainant and any other. But however in this case, this Forum is not legally to decide the case for the complainant. With the above observation, the proceedings in this complaint is closed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of May 2012

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========