D.O.F:27/08/2022

                                                                                                  D.O.O:30/01/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    KASARAGOD

      CC.No.204/2022

Dated this, the 30^th day of January 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                        :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Hassan Bekal, aged 62 years,

S/o.Bava,

Bekal House,

Bekal P.O,                                                                 : Complainant

HosdurgTaluk, Kasaragod

(Adv. Rajeevan.K)

                                                                        And

M/S.National Radio Electronics

Kasaragod,                                                                : Opposite Party

Kasaragod .P.O

ORDER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

            The complaint is filed for compensation on the ground of service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant had purchased a Crompton water heater Solarium from the opposite party for a price of R.8,550/- which was delivered on 25.04.2022.  The article was purchased by the complainant to make use of it during the chilled monsoon season for smoothening effects of his own ill health.  But the above Crompton water heater became defective on 06.07.2022 and when the complainant informed the same, the opposite party sent a technician on 11.07.2022, who declared that everything was set right.  But on 16.07.2022 the above machine again defective.  Though the technician repaired it on 20.07.2022 and 21.07.2022, there was no positive results.  The complainant sent a registered lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding replacement of the water heater but the opposite party did not comply with.  The act and omission of the opposite party amount to service deficiency and unfair trade practice due to which complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monitoring lose. The complainant estimates his loss to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and the opposite party is liable to pay that amount.  Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to replace the Crompton Water heater with a new one of the same brand or to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with cost.

The notice sent to the opposite party is duly served but they remained absent. The name of the opposite party is called and set exparte.

The complainant did not adduce any oral evidence.  The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 to A4.  Document Ext.A1 is the copy of the lawyers notice dated06.08.2022,  Ext.A2 is Postal acknowledgment card, Ext.A3 is Instruction Manual of Crompton Water Heater, Ext.A4 is the Cash Receipt issued by the opposite party. 

Based on the pleadings and documents, the following issues are framed in this case.  

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief? 

The specific case of the complainant is that Crompton water heater Solarium purchased by him from the opposite party for a price of R.8,550/- which was delivered on 25.04.2022.  The article was purchased by the complainant to make use of it during the chilled monsoon season for smoothening effects of his own ill health.  But the above Crompton water heater became defective on 06.07.2022 and when the complainant informed the same the opposite party sent a technician on 11.07.2022, who declared that everything was set right.  But on 16.07.2022 the above machine again defective.  Though the technician repaired it on 20.07.2022 and 21.07.2022, there was no positive results. The complainant sent a registered lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding replacement of the water heater but the opposite party did not comply with.  

The complainant produced documents Ext.A1 to A4 and succeeded in proving his case. The complainant argue that selling a defective product for money and denying replacement, even after knowing that it is defective and non-repairable, is gross negligence and unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monetary loss.

In the absence of rebuttal evidence, this commission hold that there is gross negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to replace the Crompton water heater Solarium with a new defect free one of the same brand or refund the entire amount with compensation and cost.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to replace the Crompton water heater Solarium with a new defect free one of the same brand or to refund the entire amount of Rs.8,550/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only)with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 27.08.2022, the date of complaint to the date of payment.  The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost to the complainant.

Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.

     Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1: Copy of lawyers notice

A2: Postal Acknowledgment card

A3: Instruction Manual of Crompton Water Heater

A4: Bill Issued by the opposite party

     Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/