By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

Case of the complainant :-

1.     On 15/4/2017 complainant had purchased Impex LPG stove worth Rs. 3500/- from opposite party No.2 shop which is manufactured by opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 had provided a bill for the same.  At the time of purchasing the above gas stove, opposite party No.2 assured that they will   come to complainant’s house for servicing the gas stove.

2.         But within few days, this gas stove got dyfunct and complainant approached opposite party No.2. As per their advice,   he had entrusted the gas stove with them   and they had rectified the defect and gave back to complainant on the very next day. But the above gas stove again got dyfunct and on 12/05/2017 complainant had entrusted the stove on opposite party No.2 shop. That is the third occasion, complainant had approached opposite party No.2 with this defective gas stove.  Thereafter opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the defects caused to the gas stove was non repairable and advised the complainant to approach opposite party No.1. But complainant did not get the gas stove yet.  Thereafter complainant had bought another gas stove for his house hold purposes. Complainant approached opposite party No.2 so many times but nothing happened. Hence this complaint. It is a clear deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties, which caused mental agony and hardship to complainant. Complainant was unable to use this gas stove even for a day. 

3.    The prayer of the complainant is  that , he is entitled to get Rs. 3500/- the cost of the gas stove , Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the  act of opposite parties and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

4.            On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and

notice   served on  them and opposite  party  No.1 appeared before  the  Commission

through their counsel and filed version. But opposite party No.2 did not turn up. Hence opposite party No.2 set exparte.

5.       In their version, opposite party No.1 denied all the averments in the complaint except those which are admitted there under. They stated that opposite party No.2 informed them that the above gas stove got dyfunct during the guarantee period. Then they send a service engineer to opposite party No.2 shop and repaired the gas stove. But the other allegations are not known to opposite party No.1. They again stated that they did not get any gas stove from complainant for repair thereafter. During the guarantee period they had repaired the gas stove without service charge. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side.

 6.      In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 15/04/2017, Ext.A2 is  a paper having seal of opposite party No.2 dated 12/05/2017  regarding the LPG gas stove model No.1213B “received for service’’ . Thereafter opposite party No.1 filed affidavit but no documents produced.        

7.     Heard complainant and opposite party No.1. Perused affidavit and documents.  The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
2. If so, reliefs and cost.

8. Point No.1 & 2:-

                Case of the complainant is that  the gas stove  he had bought from opposite party No.2 shop manufactured by opposite party No.1 had became dyfunct within  few days of   its purchase.  But opposite parties did not repair the stove. Complainant bought another gas stove for his household purposes.   

9.        Opposite party No.2 was not present and  so they set exparte. Opposite party No1 denied all the allegations leveled by complainant and they admitted that opposite party No.2 informed them about the gas stove of complainant which got dyfunct during the  guarantee period. A clear admission is there from the side of opposite party No.1, that complainant’s stove got dyfunct during the warranty period. That means the stove got dyfunct within few days of its purchase. Moreover  they did not deny   or questioned the documents such as Ext.A1 and A2 submitted by complainant before the Commission.  

10.    Opposite party No.1 not produced the warranty card of the stove. They can easily produce the warranty card  of   this kind of gas stoves which complainant had bought. As per complainant’s case the above mentioned gas stove got damaged nearly 3 times before 12/05/2017. As per Ext.A2 document, given by opposite party No.2 to complainant on 12/05/2017 clearly stated that they had received the gas stove for service. Their seal is also there.  

11.   So we are on the opinion that the claim raised and complaint filed by complainant is true. The gas stove bought by complainant got damaged within few days of its purchase. There is clear manufacturing defects for the above gas stove.  As per Ext.A1 it is clear that complainant had bought a gas stove model No.1213B from opposite party No.2 shop which was manufactured by opposite party No.1 and  as per Ext.A2 it is clear that complainant had entrusted the above gas stove model No.1213B to opposite party No.2 shop. As per Ext.A1 the date of purchase was  15/04/2017 and as per  Ext A2  the date  for entrusting  the gas stove for service was  12/05/2017.That means the above mentioned gas stove of complainant got dyfunct  within  one month as per  documents. The warranty period of the above gas stove was not mentioned by complainant and opposite party No.1.  The burden is on the opposite parties to prove that whether the warranty period of the gas stove is 6 months, one year or two years. They can easily produce the warranty card of this type of gas stove which complainant had bought. They did not produce any document before the commission. From the version and affidavit, we are on the opinion that they did not seriously approached towards the complaint.   They just simply   washed their hands by saying that they have no role in the above complaint filed by complainant .They again stated that they are the unnecessary party in the complaint. Hence complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.

12.      They admitted that they are the manufacturers of the above gas stove. Hence they are liable for the manufacturing defect caused to the gas stove. They again admitted that complainant’s gas stove got dyfunct during the guarantee period and they send a service engineer to opposite party No.2 shop and repaired the gas stove. From the above points we are on the opinion that the above mentioned gas stove bought by complainant was defective. It has manufacturing defects.  The above gas stove got dyfunct during the warranty period. Hence opposite party No.1 and 2  are jointly and severally liable  for the  manufacturing defect of the gas stove  and they are jointly and  severally liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from their side which caused mental agony and hard ship to complainant. Complainant again stated that he had bought another gas stove for his daily purpose.  But he did not produce the bill of the new gas stove. But it is clear that, he may have bought new gas stove because it is an essential thing in a house. Without a stove, we cannot move a bit in our daily life. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.

13. We allow this complaint as follows:-

1. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.3500/-(Rupees Three thousand and five hundred only) the cost of the gas stove to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings

          If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.

Dated this 1^st  day of  December, 2022

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                    : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                 : Ext.A1 & A2.

Ext.A1  :Copy of tax invoice dated 15/04/2017.

Ext.A2 : Paper having seal of opposite party No.2 dated 12/05/2017  regarding the

               LPG gas stove model No.1213B “received for service’’ .

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party               : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party             : Nil

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER