The complainant’s case in brief is as follows. On 09.06.2012 complainant purchased one prestige mixer grinder having No. Dix.L.S.750 watts by paying 2550 from 1^st opposite party.  When it was used leakage of water was seen from jars as well as through the bottom of the mixie.  A feeling of numbness was also suffered by the complainant and his wife finding that the mixie is having some manufacturing defect, the complainant brought the mixi to 1^st opposite party from where he purchased the same.  1^st opposite party directed the complainant to approach 2^nd opposite party.  Even though the complainant produced the mixie before 2^nd opposite party who is authorized service person of Prestige Company products.  But 2^nd opposite party also not done anything to cure the defect of the mixer grinder stating that no spare parts are available with them and informed the complainant to come after two weeks.  The complainant being employed in a private firm have no time to spent for this.  The opposite parties are having liability to replace the defective mixer grinder with a new one.  Due to the advert act of the opposite party in rectifying the defect of the mixer grinder complainant suffered much mental pain and he is claiming a compensation of `1,00,000 from the opposite party.  Hence the complaint filed.

          After receiving the complaint notice was issued to 1^st opposite party received the notice but not appeared before the Forum and notice issued to 2^nd opposite party was returned stating reason “Not Known”.  But there after notice was directly served to 2^nd opposite party from the Forum.  None of them appeared and filed version disputing the complainants allegations.  Hence they were set exparte.

          On the above pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration.

1.           Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in rectifying the defect of the mixer grinder purchased by the complainants.

2.           Relief as to cost.

Issue No.1 and 2  :

          For the sake of convenience both issues are considered jointly.  Complainant filed chief affidavit to substantiate his case and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked.  Ext.A1 is the purchase bill which  goes to show that on 09.06.2012 complainant purchased one prestige mixer grinder Dix L.S.750 watts from 1^st opposite party by paying `2,550.  Complainant alleges that while using the mixie water is leaking from the jar as well as through the bottom side of the mixie.  Even though complainant brought the same to 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party shop, who is the authorized service centre for curing the defect,  2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party has not done anything.  The inaction on the part of opposite parties definitely caused deficiency of service towards complainant.  Here the mixer grinder was purchased on 09.06.2012 and with in a short span of time it was damaged due to manufacturing defect.  If it was a rectifiable defect it can be cured by 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party.  But the same was not done by 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party.   Hence it can be presumed that the mixer grinder purchased by the complainant is having some material defect which cannot be repaired.  Hence the set is to be replaced.  Complainant submits that he had sustained heavy inconvenience for the non-use of the mixer grinder for which he claim a compensation of `1,00,000.  We can not accept such a claim of the complainant.  The evidence adduced by the complainant is also not sufficient to grant a compensation as claimed.  Complainant also has not issued a notice to opposite party intimating his grievances before filing the complaint.  Hence there is no much weight in the contention of the complainant.  1^st opposite party being the dealer have the duty to protect the interest of their customers.  The silence on the part of 1^st opposite party after receipt of notice is also not fair practice.  Hence 1^st opposite party is liable to pay an amount of `500 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  The issues are answered accordingly.

          In the result complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to replace the defective mixer grinder with a new one of the same brand and denomination to the satisfaction of the complainant and to pay `500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize `2550 (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only), the amount paid for the purchase of mixer grinder from 1^st opposite party together with `500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost. Complainant has to return the damaged mixer grinder to 1^st opposite party when he receives the amount or new mixie.

                                 Sd/-                     Sd/-

                           President                Member     

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Bill issued by OP.

A2. Customer response card issued by OP 

A3. User’s manual

Exhibits for the opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined for either side:

Nil

                                                                      /forwarded by order/

                                                                   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT