BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th November 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HONBLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.146/2015
(Admitted on 28.04.2015)
Mr.Rohan Rego,
S/o Late Sylvester Rego,
Aged 34 years,
Umikhan Estate,
Kulshekar Post,
Mangalore-575005.
……… Complainant
(Complainant by. In person)
VERSUS
- Mr. Atul Director,
M/s Ambinete Mangalore,
#4.3.306/21, UG.10,
Pio Mall, Bejai Road,
Mangalore 575005
- KAFF Applicance (India) Pvt. Ltd,
13 & 14, Srinivas Tower,
BTM Layout, 100 Ft. Ring Road,
Opp. Reliance Fresh,
Bangalore 560079.
…. Opposite Parties
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: SRS)
(Opposite Party No.2: Exparte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
- The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant has purchased a KAFF CHIMNEY OPEC 70.01 No. and KAF HOB N 703 BG.01 No., on 18.08.2014 as per invoice No. 424/2014.15 dated 18.08.2014 and paid a sum of Rs. 29,500/ to the Opposite Party. The aforesaid KAF HOB N 703 BG was not functioning from the very first day of installation. That the instrument was not flaming properly and due to this time consumed for heating or boiling of dishes was exorbitant. But at the time of installation technicians of Opposite Party have informed the complainant that they will send the company representatives for inspection of KAF HOB N 703 BG. During the said inspection technicians of Opposite Party have demanded Rs. 1,700/ from the complainant and the amount was paid by the complainant even though the guarantee period is in force. Within a day of repair the complainant KAF HOB N 730 BG was again started troubling and the device/instrument was taking 30 minutes to cook 3 cups of tea. The complainant has lodged the complaint with the Opposite Party over phone but there was no response by the Opposite Party. On. 13.02.2015 the complainant has finally lodged the complaint with the Opposite Parties customer care No. 18001802221 as per TT No. TT114655. On response to this complaint the Opposite Party has sent a technician. The said technician informed the complainant that there is a technical problem in the KAF HOB N 703 BG. The technician also informed that due to the said problem the gas cylinder gets empty within 15 days. Thereafter failed to rectify the defect, hence complainant issued notice to Opposite Party calling upon to replace the KAF HOBN 703 BG. But there is no response from Opposite Party. Hence the above complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P Act 1986 (here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction to replace the KAF HOBN 703 BG and pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ towards compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
III. Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD, inspite of serving notice to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed version stating that the opposite party No. 2 not appeared hence placed exparte. In the present case there is neither deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party nor defect in goods purchased by the complainant. On the other hand the complainant purchased big gas burner inspite of advice of the Opposite Party and now blame the same is not suitable to him and intends to change the same. Therefore, on the pretext of manufacturing defect he filed the present complainant without there being any manufacturing defect. The guarantee is given only for manufacturing defect and not for exchange as intended by the complaint.Opposite Party denied that the aforesaid KAF HOB N 703 BG was not functioning from the very first day of installation. It is denied that the instrument was not flaming properly and due to this time consumed for heating or boiling of dishes was exorbitant. It is absolutely false to say that, at the time of installation technicians of Opposite Party have informed the complainant that they will send the company representatives for inspection of KAF HOB N 703 BG. It is submitted that, at the time of purchase this Opposite Party promised that it any manufacturing found in the product purchased the complainant then the company representative will come to the spot and verify the product and if they found any manufacturing defect he will defiantly exchange the defected product with new one. It is false to say that the first visit of Opposite Parties technician to the house of complainant was on 23.01.2015. it is specifically denied that, during the said inspection technicians of Opposite Party have demanded Rs. 1,700/ from the complainant and the amount was paid by the complainant even though the guarantee period is in force. The amount Rs. 1,700/ whatever paid by the complainant is towards the installation charges of chimney and Hob and towards the defects. The Opposite Party submitted that on 14.08.2014 the complainant herein approached the Opposite Parties show room and told that he is looking for the HOB and CHIMNEY in the COMBI OFFER. The Opposite Party had shown him N 604 BGF with OPEC 60 (COMBI), which was 4 burner Gas Hob. In that HOB there was one triple flame burner, two medium and one Auxiliary burner. But the complainant did not wish to go for that offer, because according to him it is congested. Opposite Party executive recommended the complainant to purchase N 604 BGF hob, but the complainant insisted to purchase N 703 BG HOB is suitable for big vessels and big family and not for small family who uses small vessels. But the complainant purchased N 703 BG HOB only. After purchase in the month of January the complainant approached the Opposite Party and complained that the gas burner is not properly working. So the company’s representatives visited the house of the complainant and made thorough check and thereafter found that there was no manufacturing defect. In fact in the complainant case the complainant having small family and using small vessels, naturally flames are wasted, gas consumption is high which is not utilized and only for wasted. Commonly triple flame burner is used for heavy cooking with big vessels and it is designed for that purpose and in complainant case he is using too small vessels, which can be used only on medium or small burner. If the complainant uses big vessels, the purpose of the purchase of the hob will serve. Further, it was the complainant choice to purchase KAFF CHIMNEY OPEC 70 and KAF HOB N 703 BG, inspite of educating the complainant the difference between the two hobs 604 BGF and N 703 BG hob. Therefore now the complainant cannot make allegation against the Opposite Party saying that the burner is not properly working. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. In support of the complainant One Mr.Rohan Rego, (CW1) complainant No.1 filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced document No. 1 to 3. One Meera S.P (RW1) of opposite party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories and produced the document marked Ex R1 to R2. On behalf of the opposite parties not lead any evidence hence treated nil. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that the KAF HOB N 703 BG purchased from the Opposite Party found to be defective?
- Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- If so, for what relief and from whom the complainant entitled?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i) to (iii): As per Negative
Point No. (iv): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV.POINTS No. (i) to (iv): It is undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased KAF HOB N 703 BG on 18.08.2014. The Opposite Party issued invoice No. 424/2014.15 dated 18.08.2014 by paying Rs. 29,500/ In this case the complainant contended that the very first day of installation the afore said KAF HOB N 703 BG was not functioning hence the complainant filed the above complaint before this forum. After perusal of the document produced by the Opposite Party i.e Ex R1 and R2 reveals that the complainant purchased KAF HOB 60 BR 4 by way of exchange with the invoice No. 465/2015.16 dated 23.10.2015 by paying the deference amount of Rs. 5,200.00/ bearing receipt No. 2389 dated 16.11.2015 and acknowledge the same. After receiving the above said KAF HOB 60 BR4 the complainant not present before the forum not filed any application to withdraw the complaint. Further on perusal of the documents i.e. Ex R1 Opposite Party already settled the dispute hence once again entertaining the complaint and touching the issues No.2 and 3 does not arise. Hence we are of the opinion that, since the Opposite Party and complaint are already agreed to exchange the HOB with the difference amount paying by the complainant which mean that both the parties are amicably settled their disputes. In view of the above, we hold that the complaint against Opposite Party is hereby dismissed and imposing the cost also does not arise.In the result we pass the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(1 to 7 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th of November 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI) (SMT. C.V.SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1: Mr.Rohan Rego
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
No.1: Copy of Notice sent to Opposite Party Dated: 20.03.2015.
No.2: Kaff Appliances India Pvt.Ltd, technical Job Sheet Dated: 23.01.2015
No.3: Tax Invoice No. 424/2014.15 dated 18.08.2014 for Rs. 29,500/.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Meera S.P
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Acknowledgement.
Ex.R2: Ambiente Receipt.
Dated: 30.11.2016. MEMBER
