BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 17^th DAY OF AUGUST 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct them to pay to replace the Microwave Oven or to repay him the entire amount of Rs.3,500/- with interest together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost.

 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That on 15.02.2008 the complainant purchased a Faber Microwave Oven model No.WD900AL23-6 from OP vide tax invoice no.6486 dated 15.02.2008 for a sum of Rs.3,500/- for which OP issued receipt No.8055 dated 15.02.2008 with an assurance that it carried guarantee of three years.  That the said Microwave Oven was not working and the body inside started rusting.  Therefore on 10.10.2009 the complainant approached OP with the said complaint and he was advised to contact the service center.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the service center and a representative of service center visited the house of the complainant on 16^th October, 2009 for inspection and took photographs of the rusted portion and told that the guarantee period is over and the repair charges would be Rs.2,500/-.  That at the time of purchase, he was assured by the OP that the Microwave Oven carries a guarantee of three years but he was not given any guarantee card except the instruction book.  That according to the assurance of OP the guarantee period expires on 15.02.2011.  Therefore, complainant on 24.10.2009 sent a letter to OP through registered post reiterating the aforesaid facts and requesting to replace the Microwave Oven within seven days of receipt of said notice.  That the OP instead of complying the demand made in the notice sent an untenable reply dated 11.11.2009.  That the complainant has suffered financial loss and hardship because of sub-standard item sold by OP.  That the OP is legally bound to replace the said sub-standard item sold to him.  That the refusal of OP to replace the defective item with a new Microwave Oven amounts to deficiency of service.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to replace the defective Microwave Oven with a similar well functioning FABER Microwave Oven or in the alternative to repay the entire price of the said item in a sum of Rs.3,500/- with interest @ 24% p.a and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost.

3. In response to the notice issued, OPs entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

That the OP is carrying on a business in exclusive show room of world class kitchen products known as “FABER Italy”.  That the products of the company have been under gone various tests and inspections before the same are sent to open market for sale.  That the product in question is manufactured by ‘FABER Spa’ and not by the OP who is a mere agency of ‘FABER Spa’.  That the complainant purchased a FABER Microwave oven model bearing No.WD900AL23-6 on 15.02.2009 and the same was delivered to the complainant in a good condition along with user manual and warranty card.  That the said product carries warranty of 12 months for manufacturing defects.  That the OP never assured that the product carries guarantee of three years.  That the complainant has never approached the OP with any complaint regarding the said product much less on 10.10.2009.  That the OP has never advised the complainant to approach the service center.  That the OP is not aware of the alleged visit of a person from service center to the house of the complainant for inspection of the Microwave Oven and also not aware of the estimated repair cost of Rs.2,500/-.  That the OP has suitably replied to the letter/notice sent by complainant stating that the said product carries guarantee period of 12 months only and further requested the complainant to contact the service center for any repairs.  That the rusting does not take place in a day or two and may be due to lack of knowledge and negligence of the complainant the product must have rusted.  That the OP is not liable either to replace the said product or to pay the price of the said product to the complainant.  Therefore, OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.  

4. After filing of the version, the complainant was called upon to submit his evidence by way of affidavit.  Accordingly, complainant filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Thereafter OPs got filed the affidavit evidence of their managing partner Mr.R.Laxminarayana Achar in support of the averments made in the version.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.    

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties, written arguments submitted by both sides, documents produced by both parties and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8.  OPs do not dispute the sale of Microwave Oven of FABER make to the complainant on 15.02.2009 as stated in the complaint.  The complainant alleges that at the time of purchase of the said product he was given to understand that the said product carries three years guarantee.  However OPs deny that the said product comes with a guarantee/warranty of three years as claimed by the complainant.  According to the OPs the said product comes with warranty period of 12 months from the date of purchase.

9. The complainant did not produce guarantee/warranty card of the said product.  Complainant alleges that he was not given the guarantee/warranty card along with product but was assured that it carries guarantee for three years.  OPs contend that the warranty card has been delivered to the complainant along with the product.  When the OPs deny that the said product carry warranty period of three years it becomes essential for us look into the warranty card for the warranty period.  However, no warranty card is produced.  In absence of warranty card it is difficult on our part to believe that the said product carries warranty period of three years.  Admittedly the complainant faced problem with the said product in the month of October 2009 after 1½ year from the date of purchase.  According to OPs the issue noticed by the complainant is after expiry of warranty period.  Therefore, they are not liable to answer the claim of complainant.

10. The OPs in their reply letter dated 11.11.2009 to the notice dated 24.10.2009 issued by the complainant have made it clear that the said product carries a warranty of 12 months only from the date of purchase.  That being so, the complainant ought to have produced the warranty card to substantiate his contention that the said product carries warranty of three years.  In absence of warranty card we have to accept the contention of the OPs that the said product carries warranty period of 12 months only from the date of purchase.  As already stated above, we are unable to come to a conclusion that the said product carries warranty period of three years.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot maintain the present complaint since he has noticed the alleged defect in the product subsequent to 12 months from the date of purchase.

11. For the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 17^th day of August 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 30.04.2010.

1. Sri.S.N Raja Rao.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s dated 12.03.2010.

1. Sri.R.Laxminarayana Achar.  

Documents produced by the Opposite Party:

  MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

   Vln*