By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts:-<br /> Complainant purchased on 17-01-07 a Micro Computer Controlled Premier Magic Cook for Rs.4,950/- from second opposite party. The warranty period offered was seven years. On 26-9-07 the Magic Cook developed snags and stopped functioning. Even though complainant informed opposite parties several times about the defect of Magic Cook opposite parties did not care to examine, repair or replace the product. Hence this complaint praying for replacement and compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. First opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of Magic Cook. It is also admitted that the product was sold offering warranty for seven years. The allegation that the product became defective and opposite parties failed to rectify the defects even after repeated complaint is denied. It is stated that on receiving complaint opposite party had registered the complaint as complaint No.3655 and thereafter send a serviceman, Mr.Sirajudheen to rectify the defect. Unfortunately the defect could not be solved due to non-availability of spare parts. The serviceman had properly informed complainant that the scarcity of spare parts was due to unexpected detention of the container at Cochin by customs authorities. The defects could not be rectified only because of this. That the serviceman had promised to replace the product. <br /> <br /> 3. Notice was served to second opposite party through publication. Second opposite party was absent and set exparte on 09-4-08.<br /> <br /> 4. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party has not filed any affidavit.<br /> <br /> 5. The undisputed facts are (i) Complainant purchased a Premier Magic Cook for Rs.4,950/- from second opposite party. (ii) Opposite parties offered seven years warranty for the product. (iii) The Magic Cook developed snags and became non functional during the warranty period itself. First opposite party resists the complaint contending that opposite party was always ready to replace the product on coming to know of the defects. Ext.A3 is the registered notice dated, 15-10-07 issued by complainant through his counsel to opposite parties. It is admitted by complainant that first opposite party issued a reply to this notice. The original of this reply notice is produced by complainant along with complaint. Surprisingly complainant has not brought this document on record while marking the documents. The reply notice is dated, 22-10-07 and addressed to the counsel for complainant. The relevant portion of this reply notice reads as under:-<br /> <br /> “When Mr. Ahammedkutty (complainant) informed our service Centre about the non-functioning of Premier Magic Cook, he was informed that the product would be rectified on the arrival of consignment from abroad. Immediately on receipt of the consignment, we contacted him on 18th October to replace the defective product. But he informed us that he would act only on your instruction. The product to be replaced is kept ready here and you might advise him accordingly, so that we can send our person for replacement.”<br /> <br /> Thus first opposite party has categorically stated in the reply that they are ready to replace the product. This offer to replace has been reiterated by first opposite party in the version also. During the pendency of the case several times the counsel appearing for first opposite party Smt.C.Sindhu submitted that opposite party is willing to replace the product. But complainant was not amenable. In our view, the act of committing an unfair trade practice would come into existence in its' totality only when the trader denies to replace the defective product even after the defect has been brought to the notice of the trader. Admittedly first opposite party who is the manufacturer has attempted to resolve the grievance of the consumer by offering to replace the product. The fair approach of the manufacturer who comes forward to redress the grievance at an early stage has to be appreciated. For the above reasons we find that first opposite party is liable to replace the Magic Cook. Second opposite party is exonerated from liability.<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. In the result, complaint allowed in part. We order first opposite party to replace the Magic Cook and pay costs of Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On payment and replacement complainant shall return the defect alleged Magic Cook to first opposite party.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this 9th day of June, 2008. <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5<br /> Ext.A1 : Warranty card given by opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : User manual of Micro Computer Controlled Cooker given by<br /> opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : True copy of the lawyer notice dated, 15-10-2007 sent by complainant's <br /> counsel to second opposite party.<br /> Ext.A4 : True copy of the lawyer notice dated, 15-10-2007 sent by complainant's <br /> counsel to first opposite party<br /> Ext.A5 : Order Form dated, 17-01-07 for Rs.4950/- <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER