BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 17/10/2011

Date of Order : 30/12/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 566/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The factual matrix :

The complainant a young woman, who purchased a chappathy maker from the 2^nd opposite party, manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. She has been using the kitchen ware according to the instructions specified in the warranty card passed to the consumer at the time of delivery of the equipment by the shop keeper. The chappathy maker was made out of use in a short span of 3 months since the date of purchase. When the shop keeper was contacted, he looked the other way. That is why, she is before us with this complaint seeking various reliefs including replacement.

2. Service of notice was evaded deliberately by untoward methods. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.

3. No oral evidence for the complainant. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on her side. Heard the complainant.

4. The short points for determination are the following :-

1. Whether the article under dispute is defective?

2. What are the reliefs allowable, if the answer to the point No. (i) is in the affirmative?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- A young woman of 37 years purchased a chappathy maker may be in anticipation of making her kitchen chorus more sweet and simple. The warranty statement also proudly claims that the equipment would save time, cooking oil, fuel and money. But in the instant case, the said claim proved to be a tall and empty claim divorced of reality to the helpless customer. Still she did not lose hope since she sought the assistance of the concerned persons. But she was disturbed when those persons looked the other way, instead of helping her in rectifying the defects. She has stated in her complaint that she had not violated any of the warranty conditions and she had been using the equipment in accordance with the instructions printed in the warranty card. She has come up with this complaint only when the concerned persons, were playing hide and seek game with her to evade from their liabilities.

6. The same was the tactics followed by the opposite parties when they have been called upon to explain the lapses on their part. That is why, they happened to be ex-parte in this proceedings. In that back ground, we have to go by the evidence and contentions presented by the complainant only, viz. Exts. A1 order form and A2 warranty card for the transaction and the warranty provided jointly by the opposite parties. Her contention that she had been using the kitchen ware only according to the instructions of the opposite parties also need to be believed in the absence of any attempt to controvert these statements and contentions. According to her, this article was of any use only for 3 months from the date of purchase. Today, the same is in her keeping, lying idle. In the above circumstances, it is quite perceptible the sense of disappointment and dejection of a lady who had reposed much hope and faith in an equipment which was purchased with the sole object of getting some relief in the art of food making. Today, the public have been widely cheated by manufactures and sellers who appear for a while and disappear as soon as their pockets are full with ill gotten money. This unwelcome practice must be put down with a heavy hand by the authorities. Society must be cleansed of these unscrupulous elements to save the innocent consumer.

7. The reliefs sought in this complaint are replacement of price along with compensation. We think, her demands are not unjustified and they deserve to be sustained. As the Exhibits would show the equipment under dispute was locally purchased. Still she could not avail any help for rectifying the defects even if the defects were found during the warranty period. Therefore, we think that replacement will not be of much avail to the lady, and therefore, we allow refund of the price by the 1^st opposite party. In the same way, she must be compensated for having undergone mental agony out of the unsupportive attitude of the opposite parties. As no costs have been demanded, we refrain from allowing anything on that score.

8. In the result, we allow the complaint as follows :-

1. The 1^st opposite party shall refund Rs. 1,550/- being the price of the kitchen ware.

2. The opposite parties will jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid sum will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order till realisation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of December 2011.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========