IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of June, 2023.
Filed on 25.05.2023
Present
1. Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President-in-charge )
2. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
CC/No.135/2023
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Noushad C A 1. The Authorised Signatory
Charuvila, Pathiyoor I Bell, VII/565, A&B, Anachal
Eruva Vadakku Vazhikulangara Byepass road
Alappuzha-690508 Thathappilly, Ernakulam
(Party in person) (North Paravoor)-683520
2. The Authorised Signatory
Greens Industries, 7/136,
Chalakkal, Marampally
Chowwara, Ernakulam-683105
3. The Authorised Signatory
Amazon India, 2nd floor,
Safina Towers, Opp.JP Technopark
No.3 Ali Asker road,
Bangalore-560052
(All Ops are exparte)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
- Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows: -
The complainant purchased an OTG oven, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, through the online site of the 3rd opposite party on 22.02.2023. But the handle of the said product was defective and was replaced on 24.02.2023. Unfortunately, the replaced product is defective and the complainant registered a complaint to the customer care of the 1st opposite party and a technician was deputed but who could not repair the same due to the scarcity of parts. However, they have taken the product with warranty card from the complainant for repair but have not returned it yet. The complainant alleged deficiency in service of the opposite party. Aggrieved by the act of opposite parties the complainant approached this Commission and seeking the following reliefs.
1. To direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the disputed product.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings.
2. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed product?
- Whether opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
- Reliefs and costs?
3. The complainant appeared in person. He filed proof affidavit with 3 documents, which were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. The opposite parties remained absent and proceeded with exparte. Heard the complainant.
4. Point No.1 and 2
On perusal of the evidence on record it is found that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,461/- as the price of the OTG. According to the complainant the product received was defective. As per Ext.A1 the said product dispatched on 19.02.2023. Further as per Ext.A3, the invoice was created on 19.02.2023. The said product received on 22.02.2023. The description shown in Ext.A3 is “IBELL EO500G OTG 50 Litre, Convection Oven Toaster Griller with Motorized Rotisserie, 2000 Watt, 6 Heating Modes| Black| B09GVW9B9H (IBLEO500G) HSN: 85166000”. Further Ext.A2 is the warranty card of model No.IBLE0500GDLX and serial No.IBL 60500G DLXUAT-390 issued by the 1st opposite party and date of purchase shown as 24.02.23. It is understood from the above evidence that the products mentioned in Ext.A3 and Ext.A2 is different since its model numbers are different. It can be seen that the 1st OTG was replaced and subsequently supplied the disputed OTG to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the 2nd product is also defective and the same had taken for repair by the opposite parties but they failed to return the product. Seemingly, the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged. Despite the receipt of notice from this Commission opposite parties are reluctant to appear and submit their evidence. Hence it can be understood from the silence of the opposite party that they do not have a consistent case. In the above circumstances, we find that the opposite parties committed the deficiency in service therefore they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. It seems that the product becomes defective immediately after purchase and cannot be rectified, it can be considered as its inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, all the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the disputed product to the complainant. Since manufacturer, dealer and service provider are equally liable for the defects caused to the product.
5. Point No.3
In the result complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows:-
1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.7,461/-being the price of the disputed oven to the complainant and also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service. Failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the complaint, 25.05.2023 till realization.
3. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs to the complainant.
If the opposite parties fail to obey the order under 1 and 2 the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the complaint, 25.05.2023 till realization.
The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 30th day of June 2023. Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Details of Amazon order
Ext.A2 - Copy of warranty card
Ext.A3 - Tax invoice dtd.19.02.2023
Evidence of the opposite parties: NIL
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
