DATE OF FILING : 30.10.2017
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.230/2017
Between
Complainant : Sumesh Vettickal,
Vettickal House,
Mailakkombu P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki.
And
Opposite Parties : 1. Kuruvithadam Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,
Ambalam bypass Road,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki – 685 584.
2. The Manager,
Worlpool India Ltd.,
South Kalamassery,
Ernakulam.
(By Adv: K.S. Arundas)
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is that,
Complainant purchased a microwave oven from the 1st opposite party on 14.3.2017, for Rs.12500/-, manufactured by 2nd opposite party. Within a period of 5 months of purchase, the oven showed some defects in its performance and intimated the matter to the 1st opposite party on 28.8.2017, directly. A complaint was registered as 817017859. In the result, the service agent of 2nd opposite party company inspected the oven and found that the internal parts of the oven are defective and they opined that the spare parts are not available in the open market. Thereafter so many time the complainant approached 1st opposite party to redress his grievance, but the 1st opposite party has not turned up. Thereafter the complainant issued a notice to the 2nd opposite party on 3.10.2017 by stating all the above facts and demanding to cure the defect.
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
Eventhough opposite party accepted the notice, they failed to extend proper service in this matter, at least to sent a reply to this letter. Under this circumstance, the complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective oven to a new one or else to repay the purchase price along with Rs.30000/- as compensation.
Upon notice, 1st and 2nd opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version and opposite parties admitted the sale and manufacture of the microwave oven in question. In their reply version, opposite party further contended that the service agent of 2nd opposite party never opined about the defect of the oven. Opposite parties got the above service request from the complainant on 3.10.2017 and service agent found that one part of the oven became defective due to abnormal handling. The service agent contacted the complainant for curing the defect after receiving the spare parts from the manufacturing plant within a reasonable time. But the complainant was not amenable for that. Hence there is no cause of action to prefer this complaint and the same may be liable to be dismissed.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents and the complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Exts.P1 to P3(series). Ext.P1 is the retail invoice issued by the 1st opposite party on 14.3.2017. Ext.P2 is the warranty card. Ext.P3(series) are the copy of demand notice, its postal receipt and the AD card. Heard both sides.
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
We have heard the learned counsels for both parties and perused the records. It is admitted that the microwave oven fount defective within 5 months of its purchase. From Exts.P1 to P3, we can see that the complainant purchased it for an amount of Rs.12500/- from 1st opposite party on 14.3.2017. As per the Ext.P2 warranty card, the manufacturer offers one year replacement warranty for defective parts on free of cost. It is pertinent to note that the
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
complainant intimated the matter to the opposite parties on 28.8.2017 and the complaint was registered as token No.817017859. The 2nd opposite party categorically admitted this matter and the opposite parties deputed a service agent to complainant’s house and on inspection, the service agent found that the microwave oven is defective and intimated the matter to 2nd opposite party. As per the written version, 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and intimated that they will cure the defect on the availability of spare parts. For that the complainant waited for 2 more months. At last the complainant caused to issue demand notice to opposite parties on 3.10.2017. Evenafter its acceptance, opposite parties neglected the demand of complainant. Thereafter also the opposite parties not cared to cure the defect or at least to enquire the matter. This act of opposite parties is gross deficiency in service. Opposite parties has not produced any evidence either verbally or documentarily to substantiate their pleadings of their reply version.
Taking into consideration of the above facts, the Forum is of a considered view that the version of the complainant is believable and it fortifies through Exts.P1 to P3(series) documents.
Hence the complaint allowed. 2nd opposite party is directed to replace the alleged oven which is stated in Ext.P1 retail invoice with a new one or else to pay an amount of Rs.12500/- being the purchase price to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of April, 2018
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Sumesh Vettickal.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Retail invoice.
Ext.P2 - Warranty Card.
Ext.P3(series) - Copy of Demand notice, its postal receipt and AD Card.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
