BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 03/07/2012
Date of Order : 25/08/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 401/2012
Between
P. Ramachandran, | :: | Complainant |
Bhavani Nilayam, Perumpalam. P.O., Cherthala – 688 570. |
| (Party-in-person) |
And
1. Managing Director, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Indo National Pvt. Ltd., Malad, Mumbai – 64. 2. Manager, Omega Enterprises, Monastry Road, Karikkamuri South, Cochin – 682 011. |
| (Op.pts. absent) |
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
1. The brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-
The complainant purchased a Chappathi maker from the 2nd opposite party on 31-01-2012, one year warranty has been provided by the opposite parties. But the very first day itself, the machine became defunct. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties. They informed that they would repair it. But they did not take any positive steps to do so. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite parties on several occasions. But it was in vain. Hence this complaint. The complainant is seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties :
To direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the machine with interest.
To pay compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The complainant appeared in person. Notice of the 2nd opposite party returned unserved. Despite receipt of notice from this Forum, the 1st opposite party remained absent. The complainant adduced documentary evidence only. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
3. The following points came up for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the machine?
Compensation and costs, if any?
3. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- The case of the complainant is that he bought one chappathi maker from the 2nd opposite party. The same was defunct right from the beginning. One year warranty has been provided as per Ext. A2. No evidence is on record to dis believe the contentions of the complainant. The ample opportunity has been given to the opposite parties to substantiate their case. In the absence of such evidence, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the machine from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the dealer, they are contractually liable to rectify the defect of the machine. Moreover, there is privity of contract between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. We are not ordering any compensation, since we have already ordered to refund the price. Nevertheless, the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the 2nd opposite party.
4. In view of the above, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 2nd opposite party shall refund Rs. 1,850/- being the price of the disputed machine and also shall pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation costs to the complainant, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the day fixed for compliance of this order till realisation.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of August 2012.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of warranty terms |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the order form dt. 31-01-2012 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
Depositions :: Nil
=========
