COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 22.12.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22nd DECEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1803/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT K.V. Nagaraju,<br /> No.62, 1st ‘D’ Cross,<br /> S.N. Layout,<br /> Basaveshwaranagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 079. <br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. K.M. Rama <br /> Chandra Char<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Authorised Agent,<br /> P.H.D. Marketing,<br /> Marketor of Gas Stove,<br /> Chimney etc.,<br /> No.4, Shop Building No.1,<br /> Ground Floor,<br /> Opp: to CBI Ganganagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 024.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. V. Gopinath <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of CP Act 1986, by the complainant, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.Ps) to replace the gas stove or refund the amount with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in this complaint are as fallows: <br /> <br /> Complainant purchased (a) a chimney model valid-O (b) Gas Stove Model Innova-G (c) Safe Model Wonder-25, for a total sum of Rs.13,990/- from the OP. The invoice dated 22.10.2008 issued by OP is produced. Complainant went to Singapore to see his daughter. After return from Singapore on 19.12.2008 when he switched on the gas stove, the whole burner caught fire and started melting, spreading smoke all over the kitchen. Fortunately his wife noticed the fire, averted the major accidental disaster and turn off the gas, taking her life in to risk. The gas stove was removed and taken to OP on 20.12.2008 and 29.12.2008 with a request to replace that items but inspite of repeated visits; OP remained adamant. On 05.01.2009 complainant caused legal notice to replace the same within 7 days. OP replied on 08.01.2009 stating that he had sent a technician to replace the damaged part but complainant did not permit for the same; the complainant felt complete replacement. On 27.01.2009 complainant wrote another letter to OP requesting replacement of entire component as he does not want to take risk again. On 04.02.2009 OP a gave the reply stating if the product is beyond repair then only they will replace the same at free of cost. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he was advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed its version mainly contending that OP attended the complaint and assured the best service from the service engineers. Only certain parts were defective not the entire unit. Complainant is a greedy insisting for a new set. The complainant did not permit to change the defective parts or to service the stove. OP even now is ready and willing to service and replace the components of the unit in dispute. Prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents OP also filed affidavit evidence. The complainant and OP filed written arguments. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the<br /> deficiency in service on the part of the <br /> OP? <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for<br /> the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. <br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased a Chimney Model Valid-O, Gas Stove Model Innova-G, Safe Model Wonder-25 for a total sum of Rs.13,990/- from the OP on 22.10.2008. The invoice issued by OP is produced. He went to Singapore to see his daughter. After returned from Singapore on 19.12.2008, when he switched on the gas stove it caught fire and burner started melting with heavy smoke spreading over entire kitchen. His wife intervened averted the major fire disaster by turning off the gas taking her life into risk. Further it is not at dispute that complainant contacted OP to replace the stove. OP contends that the technical engineer was sent but complainant did not permit them to inspect the stove. There is no evidence in support of this contention. <br /> <br /> 8. It is contended by the complainant that due to uncertainty about the performance of the stove and in the apprehension of danger that may happen mere replacement of defective parts will not serve the purpose as he felt manufacturing defect. Complainant need complete replacement of the stove. Hence complainant caused legal notice to OP on 05.01.2009 and a letter on 27.01.2009. In a reply notice dated 08.01.2009 OP is ready to replace the defective part. As per the reply letter dated 04.02.2009 OP has contended that in accordance with the policy of the manufacture OP will extend warranty of one year; further in case defective product is beyond repairs; then OP would be in a position to replace the same free of cost within the period of warranty. In our view the very fact of stove burner melted immediately after the stove was switched on goes a long way to hold that the materials used the manufacture of the stove is substandard material. Mere replacing the component damaged would not serve the purpose as the complainant is apprehending every danger to life of persons in the house by making use the gas stove purchased. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice OP is to be directed to replace the new product of the gas stove and take back the gas stove sold to the complainant. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to replace a new Gas Stove Model Innova-G and take back the defective stove from the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards litigation costs within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of December 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm<br /> <br />