DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 374 of 9.9.2019

                                      Decided on:                   6.1.2023

Vinod Kumar Nadda S/o Sh.Krishan Dass r/o House No.2652, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Deepak Traders, MainBazar, Tripuri, Patiala through its Prop./partner.
2. Atul Goel, Incharge Prestige Service Centre, Sirhindi Gate, Near Malhi Diary, Patiala.
3. Prestige Limited through Mr.G.S.Anil Kumar,G.M. (Sales) TTK Prestige Limited, Contact:38, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Hosure-635126, Tamil Nadu, India.                                            …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.S.P.Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                                      None for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.Atul Goel, Incharge Prestige/OP No.2.

                                      Sh.Gurbakshish Singh, for OP No.3.                                     

ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Vinod Kumar Nadda S/o Krishan Dass       (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Deepak Traders and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred that the complainant purchased a four burner Gas Stove make Prestige from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.8300/- vide invoice No.9663 dated 13.12.2018 with a warranty of one year. It is further averred that when the complainant started to use the gas stove, he found that burner No.1 and big burner No.3 were not working properly. In this regard complainant approached OP No.1 many times and after passing of four months on 16.3.2019 OP No.1 sent the Gas Stove in question to OP No.2, service centre of Prestige for repair. OP No.2 repaired the gas stove but problem was not solved. There is thus manufacturing defect in the Gas stove. It is further averred that the complainant time and again requested OPs to replace the defective gas stove with new one or to refund the price of the same but the OPs refused to do so, which caused mental agony harassment to the complainant. Complainant also got served legal notice dated 31.5.2019 upon the OPs but all in vain. Consequently, prayer has thus been made for the acceptance of the complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their respective written replies.
4. In the written reply filed by OP No.1 it admitted all the averments of the complainant and after denying only prayer clause has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In the written statement filed by OP No.2 it is admitted that the complainant registered two complaints with the service centre. The first complaint  registered on 16.3.2019 for the reason of low flame was accumulated due to food particles including spillage of water, which was just cleaned by the service technician. Second complaint  was registered on 30.5.2019 when the service technician inspected  gas stove thoroughly and observed that the gas stove was working perfectly. There is thus no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the written statement filed by OP No.3 it is submitted that M/s TTK prestige Ltd. is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act,2013 and is carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of “prestige” range of home appliances. Further OP No.3 has reiterated the written statement filed by OP No.2 and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In order to prove his case complainant through his counsel has furnished his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of bill,Ex.C1, copy of job sheet,Ex.C2, copy of legal notice,ExC3, copies of postal receipts,Exs.C4 and C5.
8. In rebuttal, OP No.1 through its counsel has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.
9. The representative of OP No.3 tendered in evidence his own affidavit, Ex.OPB, affidavit of Ravi Kumar Mehra, Ex.OPC alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 authorization letter,  Exs.OP2 & OP3 copies of job sheets, Ex.OP4 recorded CD, Ex.OP5 copy of user manual and closed the evidence.
10. Sh.Atul Goel, Incharge Prestige Authorized Service Centre/OP No.2 has tendered his own affidavit, Ex.OPD & had relied upon the documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 tendered by OP No.3 has closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the arguments addressed by the respective parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The only relief sought for by the complainant is to give a direction to the OPs to replace the gas stove with new one or to refund the price of the same alongwith compensation and costs.
13. Admittedly, complainant had purchased the gas stove in question from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.8300/- on 13.12.2018 vide bill Ex.C1.Subsequently complainant filed  complaints with the OPs regarding the problem in the said gas stove on 16.3.2019 and 30.5.2019 which were attended by the OPs. However, the complainant was not satisfied with the working of the gas stove and had mentioned the same on the repair/job sheet, Ex.C2. Legal notice was also served upon the OPs but no fruitful purpose was served.
14. On perusal of the file, it is observed that OP No.1 had admitted all the averments made by the complainant which include the problems in the working of the gas stove. OP No.2 has relied upon warranty clause vide which replacement is allowed only if the defect in the stove is not repairable. Thus, we are of the opinion that there was a problem in the working of the gas stove and even after repeated repairs by the technician of the OPs the problem could not be solved.
15. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to return the  amount of Rs.8300/-, the price of the Gas Stove, to the complainant alongwith simple interest @6% per annum from the date of purchase i.e.13.12.2018 till realization. The complainant shall return the gas stove in question to the OPs in as found condition. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as costs of the complaint.
16.           Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.           
17.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President