By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a product of 1^st Opposite Party from 2^nd Opposite Party paying Rs.15,290/- on 17.04.2010. The name of the product is 'Faber FH 40 Amd Hob' which he purchased believing the news paper advertisement given by 1^st Opposite Party assuring life time warranty with prompt service.

2. Within a few months of purchase, the above said product started malfunctioning and the 2^nd Opposite Party was informed about it. On 02.11.2010, service personnel from 1^st Opposite party came to the Complainant's house and inspected the product. He said that a spare part had to be replaced. Thereafter, in spite of the repeated demands of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties have not sent any service personnel or have not replaced the defective part of the product. They have not even replied to the e-mails sent by the Complainant. There is manufacturing defect of the product sold by them. Not rendering service after sale is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant do not like to associate with the Opposite Parties hereafter.

3. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Parties to take back their product and give the Complainant the price of the product. He also prays for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the cost of the complaint.

4. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version and admitted the sale of the kitchen hood item & Faber FH 40 AMD Hob to the Complainant. There is no manufacturing defect for the product as is alleged by the Complainant. This Opposite party received e-mail from the Complainant on 22.11.2010 and the same was forwarded to the local service centre for placing the order for spare parts. Thereafter the local service centre has placed the spare parts order for motor and PCB to the head office. The spare parts were despatched on 24.11.2010 and reached the local service centre ;on 29.11.2010. Unfortunately by this time the technician of the company fell ill and the matter was informed to the Complainant and the company requested further time for repairs. In the mean time, the company arranged another senior technician Mr. Navas from Cochin. But the Complainant did not allowed the said Navas to replace the spares. The Complainant has not allowed Navas to repair with ulterior motive to make unlawful gains against the terms and conditions of the sale. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party and he prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

5. The 2^nd Opposite party also filed version and stated that the 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party to the case. The 2^nd Opposite Party has forwarded the complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party in time. It was informed that the technician of the company fell ill and that matter also was informed to the Complainant. Then the senior technician arranged by the company could not replace the spare due to the non co-operation of the Complainant. So there is no deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties and the 2^nd Opposite Party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

6. The Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A10 on the side of the Complainant. 1^st Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. Documents were marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2.

7. The matters to be decided are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

8. Point No.1:- The Kitchen hood item 'Faber FH 40 AMD Hob' is purchased by the Complainant on 17.04.2010. As per the complaint on 02.11.2010 the complaint was informed to the Opposite Party. On 06.04.2010, service personnel came to the house of Complainant.  After that no effective step is taken by the Opposite Parties to repair the product. As per the version of 1^st Opposite Party, spare part reached at the local service centre only on 29.11.2010. Then the technician fell ill. Though the Opposite Parties stated that the senior technician visited the house of the Complainant to replace the party, they do that mention the date of his visit. There is no record or document to prove his visit. So it is clear that there was unreasonable delay in attending to the problem. So there is clear deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties the 2^nd Opposite Party cannot evade from the responsibility. It is the responsibility of the dealer to ensure after sale service to the customer. Hence the point No.1 is found against both the Opposite Parties.

9. Point No.2:- The Complainant's prayer is for the return of price with compensation. He is not interested to associate with the Opposite Parties furthermore. Even after filing the complaint, the Opposite Parties have not proposed for any settlement or for repair of the product. It shows the indifferent attitude of the Opposite Parties. Hence the customer should not be compelled to receive the service of the Opposite Parties. He is entitled for the amount given as price for the product. The Complainant has used the product for about 6 months, considering that, he is not entitled for any compensation.

Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.15,290/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Two hundred and Ninety only) to the Complainant with Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the case. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order within 30 days of the receipt of this order. On payment of the ordered amount the complainant should give back the disputed equipment with the 2^nd Opposite Party.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29^th July 2011.

Date of filing:27.01.2011. PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/ Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. V. Radhakrishnan. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Navas. P.K. Senior Technician.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Retail Invoice. dt:17.04.2010.

A2. Copy of Letter.

A3. Copy of Lifetime Warranty Card.

A4. Copy of Letter. dt:16.11.2010.

A5. Copy of Letter. dt:22.11.2010.

A6. Copy of Letter. dt:22.11.2010.

A7. Copy of Letter. dt:03.12.2010.

A8. Copy of Letter. dt:22.11.2010.

A9. Copy of Letter.

A10. Copy of Letter, Acknowledgements and Postal Receipts.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Authority Letter. dt:18.02.2011.

B2. Owners Manual