IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 13^th day of May, 2013.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

C.C.No. 41/2013 (Filed on 22.03.2013)

Between:

Thomas Mathew,

Mamparampil,

Mepral.P.O.,

Thiruvalla.                                               ….    Complainant

And:

1.   Cookwell Domestic Appliances,

213/selar Compound,

Subhash Nagar, Village Road,

Nahur West, Bhandup,

Mumbai – 400 078

2.   Deepthi Enterprises,

Municipal Bus Stand Building,

Thirunakkara, Kottayam – 1.           ….    Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):

                Complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief against the opposite parties.

                2. Complainant’s case is that he had purchased an “Instagrind” Flour Mill manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for Rs. 5,500/- from the 2^nd opposite party on 14.05.2011.  The said equipment was installed by the 2^nd opposite party at the complainant’s house.  At the time of installation jar of the equipment broken and it was replaced by the 2^nd opposite party.  After 2 months of occasional use, the said equipment became damaged.  It was informed to the 2^nd opposite party, who came and took the equipment.  After 2 months, they returned the equipment to the complainant’s house after repairs.  Thereafter it was used for 15 days and then again it become defective.  On intimation, 2^nd opposite party’s technician come and took the equipment for repairs along with original bill on January 2012.  But they have not returned the same so far and now it is with them for the last one year.  In spite of the complainant’s request for the return of the same they have not returned it so far.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for getting compensation and for directing opposite parties from not selling such type of defective equipments hereafter.

                3. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.

                4. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint the only question to be decided is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                5. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Ext.A1 series.  After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

                6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that “Instagrind” Flour Mill manufactured by the 1^st opposite party was purchased by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party on 14.05.2011 by paying Rs. 5,500/-.  After 2 months of use the said equipment become defective which was repaired and returned by the 2^nd opposite party.  Thereafter also the said equipment become defective again after 15 days and on intimation, the technician from the 2^nd opposite party came and took the machine for repairs along with original cash bill during January 2012.  But it was not returned so far, in spite of the complainant’s request for return.  Opposite party offered 5 year free service warranty from the date of purchase.  The non-return of the equipment ignoring the warranty condition is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing this complaint. 

                7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral testimony as PW1 and produced one document which is marked as Ext.A1series.  Ext.A1 is the users manual of the equipment given by the 2^nd opposite party at the time of purchase of the said equipment.  Ext.A1(a) is the page No.32 of Ext.A1 which is the warranty card of the equipment.  Ext.A1(b) is that particular portion of the front page of Ext.A1 showing that there is 5 year free service warranty for the equipment.

                8. On the basis of the averments in the complaint, deposition of the complainant and Ext.A1 series, it is seen that the 2^nd opposite party has sold a ‘Cook well Instagrind’ Flour Mill manufactured by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant on 14.5.2011 vide invoice No.1297.  It is also seen from the exhibits that opposite parties had offered 5 year free service warranty to the product.  The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite parties has not rectified the defects and returned the equipment inspite of the warranty conditions.  It is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  Since opposite parties are exparte we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged and hence this complaint is allowable and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant for their deficiency in service.

                9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to return the equipment after rectifying the defects within 15 days from the receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the equipment and compensation and cost ordered herein above from the opposite parties along with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.

                10. This being the first case against the opposite parties, we are not allowing the complainant’s prayer for restraining them from selling defective products.  However, opposite parties are directed not to repeat sales of such type of defective equipments.

                Declared in the Open Forum on this the 13^th day of May, 2013.

                                                                                       (Sd/-)

                                                                              K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                                    (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)         :       (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Thomas Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1    :  Users manual of the equipment.

A1(a)        :  Warranty card of the equipment. 

A1(b)        :  Particular portion of the front page of Ext.A1.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                    (Sd/-)

                                                                   Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Thomas Mathew, Mamparampil, Mepral.P.O.,  

                    Thiruvalla.          

(2) Cookwell Domestic Appliances, 213/selar Compound,

            Subhash Nagar, Village Road, Nahur West, Bhandup,

            Mumbai – 400 078

(3) Deepthi Enterprises, Municipal Bus Stand Building,

                    Thirunakkara, Kottayam – 1.

               (4) The Stock File.