<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.02.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 09th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.511/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT B.S.Santhanam,# 56, 20th Main, 2nd Cross,BTM 2nd Stage, 1st Phase,Bangalore – 560 076.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY LORMAN SOLUTIONS,# 700/A, 1st Main Road,(Below Mahila Co-operative Bank)T.Dasarahalli,Bangalore – 560 057.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the cost of electric induction stove or replace the defective one and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one electric induction stove from OP on 17.10.2008 for a valid consideration of Rs.3,990/- with a warranty of one year. But within a span of two months he noticed certain defects in the said stove. He repeatedly contacted the OP. Though OP attended to the repairs but it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. He again took the said stove for repairs on January 26, 2009 neither OP repaired it nor returned it. His requests and demands went in futile. For no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus he felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. OP refused to accept the notice. Service is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one electric induction stove from OP on 17.10.2008 for Rs.3,990/-. A document to that effect is produced. The said stove carried warranty of one year. It is the allegation of the complainant that within a span of two months he noticed defect in the said stove. It suddenly went out of order then he intimated the OP. OP attended to the repairs but unable to detect the defect and cure the same.<br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended that again the said stove went out of order on 26.01.2009, he took it for repairs to OP subsequently there to neither OP repaired the said stove nor returned it to him. His repeated requests and demands made to OP went in futile. Hence he felt deficiency in service. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony.<br /> <br /> 6. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non appearance of the OP and not participating in the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP admits the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant with a fond hope of purchasing a defect free electric induction stove invested his hard earned money but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of hostile attitude of the OP. OP though received the total cost of the stove failed to deliver defect free stove thereby accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. <br /> <br /> 7. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to replace the defective electric induction stove with a brand new defect free one for the same price within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the cost of the stove Rs.3,990/-, pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 09th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />