COMPLAINT FILED: 06.01.2010<br /> DISPOSED ON: 22.06.2010 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RE<br /> DRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22ND JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.33/2010<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT S. Ravi,<br /> No.102, 3rd Main, <br /> Shamanna Gowda Layout,<br /> Saraswatipuram, Ulsoor,<br /> Bangalore – 560 008. <br /> <br /> In Person <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr. Mohd. Shahid, <br /> (Proprietor),<br /> Star Enterprises, <br /> Door No.366, <br /> Jammu Masjid,<br /> O.P.H. Road,<br /> (Near Commercial Street),<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri Manzoor Pasha <br /> <br /> 2. Velayudham,<br /> (Manager),<br /> Ganesh Agencies,<br /> 27/1, H.B. Samaja Road, <br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> (Dismissed as not pressed as per order dated 03.03.2010)<br /> O R D E R S<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Party – 1 (herein after called as O.P) to replace the grinder or refund the amount of Rs.2,700/-. Against OP-2 complainant sought relief to pay an amount of Rs.175/- which was taken by is representative. <br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant purchased a wet grinder on 07.12.2008 from OP-1 for Rs.2,700/- OP-1 delivered the grinder at complainant’s doors step in an autorickshaw without proper packing, the guarantee is for one year. On 31.11.2009 the plastic handle attached the steel rod and gripper broken while grinding. The complainant approached OP-1 and OP-1 asked the complainant to approach the OP-2, as OP-2 is selling the product and any parts etc., to be changed only by OP-2. The complainant approached OP-2 and OP-2 deputed a representative Mr. Ramesh Reddy on 01.12.2009 and the said representative changed only the handle (not the gripper) and collected Rs.175/-. The complainant contacted OP-2 on 03.12.2009 questioning the representative having collected Rs.175/-; for that OP-2 stated that the cost of replacement was Rs.125/- and Rs.50/- towards service charges. The complainant requested OP-2 to refund that amount, as the replacement was within guarantee period, but OP-2 told that it is not possible, since the parts were not covered under the guarantee scheme. The grinder completely stopped from functioning from 22.12.2009. In the guarantee card, the validity for motor mentioned as 09.12.2008 and for grinder it is shown as 12.01.2009. Since the grinder now totally stopped working, no representative of OP-1 and 2 turned up for repair / replacement. Hence the complainant approached with this complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP-1 filed version admitting that the complainant has purchased the product wet grinder, the same was in good running condition and it was a brand new piece. It is stated that the complainant has used the product for more than a year without any complaints. After lapse of guarantee period the complainant approached to replace the grinder alleging that its plastic handle and gripper is broken; for that OP-1 informed the complainant that he is only dealer of the product and he is not responsible for the manufacturing defect and its functioning. However there is no manufacturing defect of the product and the complainant complained about the plastic handle attached to the steel rod is broken and asked to replace the same, since he is not responsible for such defects, he did not entertain the complainant. The complaint is barred by limitation, the complainant approached OP-1 about the product after expiry of guarantee period and he is in no way responsible for the alleged non-functioning of the product and the guarantee is valid for only one year. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. As per the submission of the complainant; the complaint against OP-2 was dismissed as per order dated 03.03.2010.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence. OP-1 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version. <br /> <br /> 6. Arguments heard on both sides. Points for our consideration are: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the <br /> deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP-1?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled<br /> for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 7. We record our findings on the above points as under: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative. <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased a wet grinder from OP-1 for Rs.2,700/- on 07.12.2008 and the guarantee period for the product was one year as per the guarantee card issued. From the affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced it becomes clear that the said wet grinder stopped functioning from 22.12.2009; that is within a year from the date of purchase and the complainant has approached for replacement, but none of the representative of OP-1 turned up for attending the repair or replacing the product. OP-1 as a dealer is equally responsible for replacement or refund of the amount if the product sold is defective. OP-1 cannot avoid his liability on the ground that the manufacturer is responsible for replacement or refund of the amount.<br /> <br /> 9. In the affidavit evidence the complainant has clearly stated that the local mechanic Mr. Prakashan of Surya Electrical Works after examining the product has stated that the motor was made of ‘aluminum’ wiring instead of ‘copper’ wiring and the stone beneath the machine also broken one. Thus it becomes clear that the product i.e., wet grinder supplied by OP-1 was defective and OP-1 has failed to replace the product or refund the amount. OP-1 as a dealer by selling the defective wet grinder practiced unfair trade practice. Further the act of OP-1 in not refunding the amount or replacing the product amounts to deficiency in service on his part. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. In view of the same, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OP-1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,700/- to the complainant and collect the wet grinder and pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- within four weeks from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <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 22nd day of June 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br />