D.o.F;25/6/08 D.o.O:10/11/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.104/08 DATED THIS, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI: MEMBER Narayana .M, S/o Kunhirama, Near Gopalakrishna Temple, : Complainant R.D.Nagar, Kasaragod. 1. Indo German Business Laborataries, Star Complex, Beach Road, Kasaragod. 2. Sunny Jacob, Indo German Business Laborataries, Star Complex, Beach Road, Kasaragod : Opposite parties 3. Rahulraj, S/o Rajan, Parapparath House, Echippoyil, Po.Kottamala,Chittarikkal,Kasaragod ORDER SMT.P.RAMADEVI: MEMBER: The facts of the complaint are as follows; That the opposite party No.2 agent of OP.No.1 approached the complainant and as per his canvas and assurance of quality, performance and prompt after sale service, the complainant tend to purchase one unit of Instagrind Flour Mill from the opposite parties. The opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.3495/- on 9/11/06, which is having one year warranty and 5 years free service from the date of purchase. The opposite party No.2 and No.3 gave their mobile phone number to the complainant. Ever since the date of purchase one or other way the said grinder machine gives trouble and once OP.NO.2 supplied the jar blade which became defective. But now the grind flour mill jar setting is found loose and leaking and it is not working properly and the same is informed to the opposite parties through telephone. Initially there was response on the side of OP.NO.2 later he evaded the calls of complainant. But so far he did not came and repaired the unit. Hence the complaint is filed alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and for the reliefs of supply of sufficient parts of Insta Grind flour mills to the complainant and service the unit as per guarantee of free service and set right the Instagrind Flour mill of the complainant free of cost and a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for physical , mental strain and cost of the proceedings. 2. Notice to opposite parties were sent through registered post . Notice to opposite parties No.1&2 returned with endorsement addressee left. The notice to OP.No.3 returned as unclaimed. Hence the name of OP.NO.3 called absent and set exparte. Notice against OP.1 and OP.2 published in Deepika Daily as per the order of Forum. Even then opposite parties No.1 &2 are not appeared or represented. Hence opposite parties No. 1&2 also set exparte. 3. In this case the evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 the complainant and documents Exts.A1 to A5 . The complainant deposed that he had purchased Instagrind Flour mill from opposite parties on 9/11/2006 for Rs.3495/- and the same was delivered to his house on 23/12/06. The bill is marked as Ext.A1. There was one year warranty and 5 years free service offered by the opposite parties. But it was not working properly. On intimation opposite parties replaced the blade. But again it became defective and now it is not working. The opposite parties are not attending the defects as per their offer of free service in spite of repeated requests of the complainant. Hence he had sent notices to opposite parties No.1&2 stating the deficiency of their service to the complainant and the said notices same were returned unclaimed and it is produced and marked as Exts.A3&A4 and the copy of the same is marked as Ext.A2&A2(a). The brochure of the Instagrind Flour mill is marked as Ext.A5. Ext.A1 clearly shows the payment he made. He had paid Rs.100/- as advance at the time of booking and after that he paid Rs.3495/-. Ext.A1 shows that the total amount of the Instagrind flour mill after discount is Rs.3595/-. Ext.A5 brochure shows that the company offered one year warranty and 5 years free service. The complainant made several attempts to repair the defective machine from the opposite parties. Exts.A2 to A4 reveals the above . Here OP.NO.1 is the company and OP.No.2 is the agent under it. But the complaint is silent regarding the role of OP.NO.3. There is a reason in the complaint that the phone number of OP.NO.3 is given. It is no where stated either in the complaint or in his testimony before the Forum that in what way OP.No.3 is connected in this transaction. Eventhough he has set exparte in this proceeding and there is no evidence before the Forum that he has committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. Hence OP.NO.3 is unnecessary party to the proceedings. 4. Here the issues raised for consideration is (1) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and (2) whether the opposite parties committed any unfair trade practice towards the complainant if so what is the relief , costs and compensation. Considering all the available evidence on records and oral evidence given by the complainant OP.NO. 1&2 evading from after sale service. They are even not responding with the request of the complainant it amounts to unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties No.1&2 . Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties Nos 1&2 and also they committed unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint allowed and opposite parties No.1 &2 are directed to supply sufficient spare parts of Insta Grind Flour mill to the complainant and service the unit, set right the Insta grind flour mill of complainant free of cost and pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards the cost of this proceedings. OP.No.3 is exonerate from the liability. The time for compliance of the order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1-9/11/06- Bill A2&A2(a)-copy of letter issued by PW1 to OPs A3&A4-returned endorsement A5-Brochure PW1-Narayana .M-complainant Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
