CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

 Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                 Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.220/11

Friday the 15^th day of June, 2012.

 

Petitioner                                              : Renjith.R

                                                             Chennamkulam,

                                                             Pulickalkavala PO,

                                                             Vazhoor, Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv.M.P. Thankam)

 

 

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                                   : IFB Industries Ltd.,

                                                             14, Tarakolla Road,

                                                               Kalkkatta, Pin 700088.

                                                             2) Q.R.S

                                                                 Vinay Building,

                                                                 Baker Junction, Kottayam.

                                                             3) Aan Care Service Centre,

                                                                  (IFB)Nagambadom,Kottayam.

 

 

 

            Case of the petitioner filed on 23/12/10 is as follows.

 

            Petitioner on 30-12-06 purchased a microwave oven, from 2^nd opposite party, manufactured by 1^st opposite party. After 1 ½ years of purchase microwave oven showed serious complaints. Petitioner complained said fact to 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party deputed his servicemen ie 3^rd opposite party, for curing the defects. Servicemen of 3^rd opposite party told that front panel of microwave oven is having complaints and they will replace its soon. According to petitioner for five times 3^rd opposite party repaired the front panel of the machine. On 19/8/10, as directed by the 2^nd opposite party petitioner entrusted the oven to 3^rd opposite party. But 3^rd opposite party has not so far repaired and delivered the oven defect free. On 7/10/10 petitioner send a letter to 1^st opposite party, demanding repairing of the oven.   According to petitioner even after repeated oral demands made by the petitioner to the opposite parties, opposite parties are not so far cured the defects of the oven. According to the petitioner act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service so, he prays for a direction to 1^st opposite party to replace the defective microwave oven with a defect free microwave oven or in the alternative refund the price of the oven with 12% interest from 30/12/06. Petitioner claims Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.

            Opposite party 1 is set expartee. Opposite party 2 filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. They admitted the purchase of oven on 30/12/06. According to 2^nd opposite party warranty expired on 30/12/07, 2ndopposite party is a retailer of the consumer durables. Petitioner has not approached 2^nd opposite party for any service upto October 2010. After 4 years of using the oven petitioner approached the 2^nd opposite party for rectification of certain defects. 2^nd opposite party guided petitioner to approach 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party rectified the defect and informed the petitioner to collect the MWO after paying the respective charges as cost of spares and service charges. 2^nd opposite party have given effective and prompt service and there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

            3^rd opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable, 3^rd opposite party had given proper service to the petitioner. On 19/8/10 petitioner entrusted the oven for service as alleged in the petition by the petitioner is denied by the 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party rectified the entire defects. Even after repeated demands petitioner had not taken back the equipment by paying the service charges. Since the warranty is over 3^rd opposite party is only duty bound to give service provided at the expense of the consumer. 3^rd opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their cost.

Points for determinations are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by petitioner. Ext.A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner.

            Crux of the case of the petitioner is that microwave oven manufactured by 1^st opposite party and supplied by 2^nd opposite party is having defects. Even after repeated demands requests opposite party had not cured the defects. Purchase of the microwave oven is admitted by opposite parties. 1^st opposite party is expartee. According to the 2^nd opposite party since the warranty period is over they are not liable to rectify the defects. According to 3^rd opposite party they cured the defects. On payment of cost of parts and repair charge petitioner can very well take back the defective microwave oven. Petitioner produced a copy of letter issued by the petitioner to the 2^nd opposite party said letter is marked as Ext.A2. Even though opposite party contented that there is no defects to the microwave oven upto October 2010 they had not denied the issuance of Ext.A2 notice. So in our view the case of the petitioner as alleged in the petition is well explained in Ext.A2 so the facts with regard to defect to the microwave oven and repairs done there is much probable. So in our view act of the opposite party in supplying defective microwave oven to the petitioner amounts to unfair trade practice. So point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.

            In the result opposite party 1 and 2 is ordered to give petitioner a brand new microwave oven having the same value and quality as same as the given brand to the satisfaction of petitioner. Opposite party can take back the defective oven. If the opposite party is not possible to give a brand new microwave oven opposite party 1 and 2 are ordered to refund Rs.13,300/-, the price of microwave oven. Opposite party 1 and 2 are ordered to pay petitioner an amount of Rs.1000/- as litigation cost. Considering the facts and circumstance of case no compensation is ordered.

            Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for awarded amount from the date of order till realisation.

            Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15^th day of June, 2012.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member                     Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-copy of bill dtd.30-12-06

Ext.A2-copy of letter dtd.7/10/10

Nil

 

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.