BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 10/05/2011
Date of Order : 29/06/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 231/2011
Between
P.G. Kamalnathan, | :: | Complainant |
Yesodamadom, Palliparambukavu Road, Tripunithura - 682 301. |
| (By party-in-person) |
And
Mats India, | :: | Opposite party |
28/1000, K.P. Vallon Road, Mullackal Lane, Kadavanthra. P.O., Cochin - 682 020. |
| (Ex-parte) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
On 20-09-2008, the complainant purchased an induction cooker from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 4,450/-. The opposite party provided one year guarantee and 5 years warranty for the same. The facts while so, after 2 months from the date of purchase, the gadget went out of order. The complainant intimated the matter to the opposite party. The opposite party replaced the defective gadget with a new one. Again the same became mal-functioning. At that time, the opposite party failed either to replace the same or to refund its price. Time and again, he had to approach the opposite party to get his grievances redressed, to no avail. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to replace the induction cooker under dispute with a new one with fresh warranty together with compensation of Rs. 26,000/-.
2. Despite service of notice from this Forum, the opposite party did not respond to the same. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant, Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
3. The points that came up for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective induction cooker?
Compensation, if any?
4. Point No. i. :- Ext. A1 order form goes to show that the complainant purchased an induction cooker from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 4,450/- on 20-09-2008. Ext. A2 is the warranty card issued by the opposite party in which the opposite party has provided one year replacement warranty and 5 years warranty. Ext. A3 service voucher would show that the opposite party has received the gadget under dispute for repairs on 04-08-2010. According to the complainant, though initially redressed his grievances in the first place the subsequent complaint was not heeded to. No explanation is forthcoming on the side of the opposite party as to the retention of the gadget with them or repair thereof and subsequent deficiency of the repaired one. The absence of the opposite party in this Forum speaks volumes. The above conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in their service, In the result, the opposite party is to replace the product sold to him.
5. Point No. ii. :- Though, the complainant demanded a compensation of Rs. 26,000/- for the inconveniences caused to him due to this long litigation, especially in the event that the opposite party was absent through out, there is nothing material before us to substantiate such a claim. But understandably the complainant has had to go to inconveniences, we fix an exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
6. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :
The opposite party shall replace the defective induction cooker with a new one according to the choice of the complainant with fresh guarantee and warranty.
The opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as costs of the proceedings. 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 above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July 2011.
