ORDER
SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the purchase price of the GA-302MDF Almirah(36” x17”x78”) for Rs.10,938/- with compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief.
The complainant had purchased one GA-302MDF Almirah(36” x17”x78”) on 12/09/2015 from the opposite party for Rs.10,938/-. The said Almirah worked properly just three months. After that ,the complainant noticed some complaints in the said almirah. Then the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party on 10/11/2015. The opposite party agreed that he would come to the complainant’s house and cured the defect occurred the almirah. But the repeated demands of the complainant , the opposite party not bothered about the complainant’s grievance or rectifying the defects. The complainants’ somany valuable sarees and other dresses of the childrens also damaged due to the inferior quality of wood inserted in the almirah. Alleging the above said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The complainant has filed the instant complaint.
After filing the complaint, notice issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed the written version. Then the opposite party contended that the complainant purchased the almirah on 12/9/2015 and complaint filed only on January 2018. But not in warranty period. Opposite party states that invoice No.RT 485 only for one year warranty. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration
1 .Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs
3. Reliefs and costs.
The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A4 documents. No oral evidence from the side of the opposite party.
Issue No1.
The complainant adduced evidence before the Fora by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu of by her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version . She was cross examined by the opposite party. The documents Ext.A1,A1(a) to A4 were marked on her part. As per Ext.A1(a) bill the almirah was purchased on 12/9/2015 from the opposite party. As per Ext.A2 the warranty card in MDF& Plywood the period stated as one year. Eventhough, the Ext.A2 is in one year period of warranty, the complainant informed the opposite party for the defects of the almirah on 10/11/2015, no steps taken by the opposite party to repair or replace the almirah. In Ext.A3 and A4 to shows that the properly damaged in the almirah and informed the matter to the opposite party through photo and messages. So the opposite party bound either to repair or replace the almirah at free of cost or to replace or refund. Since the opposite party denied to replace the almirah.. There is deficiency of service on his part . The opposite party has not adduced any rebuttal evidence against the evidence adduced by the complainant. Even during the cross examination of PW1, the opposite party has not put any suggestions to substantiate their defence.
On perusal of the pleadings ,documents, evidence and arguments we the Fora hold that the almirah which was purchased by the complainant from the shop of opposite party found to be defective. Therefore it is the duty and obligation of opposite party to replace the same immediately on receiving the complaint from the customer or refund the amount. So we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party . Hence the issue No.1 found infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3
As discussed above , the almirah purchased by the complainant became defective within 3 months after the purchase. There is photo proof about the alleged damage of the almirah. We are of the view that the complainant has purchased the almirah for the life long purpose, not for the limited warranty period. So we hold that the opposite party is bound to redressal the grievances caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the purchase price of the almirah from the opposite party. There is privity of contract between dealer and the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.10,938/-(Rupees ten thousand nine hundred and thirty eight only) to the complainant along with Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost. Thus the Issue Nos 2 & 3 are also answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 10,938/- (Rupees ten thousand nine hundred and thirty eight only) to the complainant along with Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of the order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986. On receipt of the above amount, the complainant must return the GA-302MDF Almirah(36” x17”x78”) to the opposite party, if opposite party demanded for the same.
Exts.
A1 sales order
A1(a) Cash bill
A2- warranty card
A3- communication by electronics
A4- Photos
PW1-Sushama.A.P- complainant
Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
