The complainant filed a petition praying to pass orders directing the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs. 14,500/- towards pecuniary loss, 20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigation expenses and supply of new LGM Oven.
The complainant in his complaint petition submitted that on 26.01.20211 he had purchased a LGM Oven Model No-M.C 8082 PRR) Serial No 101EMUY002686 on payment of Rs. 14,500/- (Rupees fourteen thousand five hundred) only towards the cost of the said LGM oven and accordingly the OP No. 1 granted a printed money receipt vide invoice no. 9701 dated 26.01.2011. The Complainant registered for annual maintenance with effect from 20.09.2012 to 19.09.2015 for which he has paid Rs. 1956/- with the Opposite Party No-1. The said LGM Oven started problem from 10.12.2013. The Complainant reported the matter before the OP No-2 yilded no result. The complainant approached the OP No-2 in so many occasions for rectification of defects but he did not attend the request of the complainant. Due to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties the complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially.
Notice sent to the OP No-1&2 through registered post has not retuned back as unserved. Hence service presumed. Upon notice the Opposite Party No-1 appeared through his counsel and filed his written version. Despite notice the Opposite Party no-2 neither appeared nor filed his written version. Hence, Op No-2 set ex-parte.
The OP-1 contested this case and denied all material allegations raised against him by the complainant. It is contended interalia in the written version filed on behalf of the OP-1 to the effect that the complainant did not made any complaint before the Customer care of the company. The complainant is alleging before the forum in order to attempt to harass the answering OP. As such the case of the complainant is liable for dismiss.
Heard learned advocate for the complainant and Ld advocate appearing for Op No-1 perused the documents available in record. We have gone through the case in detail. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a LG make micro Oven from the OP. No.1 on payment of Rs. 14,500/- and also paid the AMC. The Oven of the complainant started problem for which the complainant exhibited the same before the Opposite Party No-2 and demanded for repair but the Opposite Party No-2 failed to rectify the defects.
It is pertinent to mention here that OP No-1 in his written version has taken so many objections. It is a hard fact that the complainant was put to a lot of mental agony, harassment by the purchase of the said Oven and even now it has been stated that the Oven is lying un-used. The Opposite party-1 is having the wide range of expertise and a big name in the business of Oven are required to come up with the clarity to explain the actual position of the Oven in question in support of his version. Expert engineer along with logical report explaining the technicalities ought to be brought on record because in the modern age each and every customer is having a legal right to get satisfaction for the each penny spent and Opposite Party being service provider who are charging the market prices of the Oven and taking AMC as per their own choice are duty bound to provide proper and adequate service services obviously which is missing in this case. A lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite parties. In the first instances, they sold a defective Oven to the complainant which started giving problem, after its purchase. On the other hand, by not redressing his grievance, in a manner, they continued rubbing salt on his injuries. The Complainant purchased the Oven for a valuable consideration for his domestic use and when it did not work obviously there must be frustration in the mind of the consumer. The complainant in the present case has been compelled to approach this Forum by spending his valuable time and money so as to get his grievance redressed. So the complainant has definitely suffered mental pains, agony and harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Keeping in view the above discussion, The Opposite party No-1 is directed to replace the defective. Over or refund Rs. 14,500/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand and five hundred only) the cost of the Oven within 30 days on receipt of a copy of this order. The Opposite Party no-1 is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1000/- (One thousand only) as litigation expenses within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the O.P. No.1 is liable to pay Rs. 50/- per day of default.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced in Open Court on 31st March, 2015.
