Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/439/2014

M/s.Praba - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. the Regional Service Centre Manager, T.T.K.Prestige Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Y.Venkatesan

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   07.11. 2014

                                                                        Date of Order :   20.11.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.439/2014

              FRIDAY THIS  20^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER  2015     

 

Mrs. J. Praba,

D.No.4, 1^st Cross Street,

Boopathy Nagar,

Solinganallur,

Chennai 600 119.                                          ..Complainant

 

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Regional Service Centre Manager,

T.T.K. Prestige Ltd.,

Old D.NO.17A, New No.18,

Baliah Avenue,

(Behind Bank of India),

Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.                                            ..Opposite party.  

 

For the Complainant                 :   M/s. Y. Venkatesan & another   

 

For the Opposite party              :    Exparte.   

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party  to replace the New Gas stove  and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony  to the complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

 

         

Even after receipt of the notice, the opposite party did not file written version.  Hence, the opposite party was set exparte on  6.1.2015.    The complainant filed proof affidavit.  Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant.  

2.     Perused the complaint  and proof affidavit filed by the complainant and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  filed on the side of the complainant  and also considered the both side arguments.

3.     The complainant in the complaint has stated that she has purchased a complaint mentioned  Gas stove which was manufactured by the opposite party’s  Retailer shop  namely Saravana Stores, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar for a sum of Rs.4400/- on 5.11.2012 as per the copy of the bill filed as Ex.A4.  The two years warranty card issued by the manufacturer of the  opposite party for the said Gas stove is filed as Ex.A1 which reveals that two years warranty period from the date of purchase of the Gas Stove.   The complainant further stated that on 15.6.2014 when the Gas stove was used it was suddenly got fire and whole Gas stove burnt and damaged.  The complainant has made complaint to the service centre at Mylapore to the opposite party and complaint No.56196 was also given by the opposite party.  The opposite party has sent technician to the complainant’s house and they inspected the said Gas stove and taken photograph and  also given assurance that the said Gas stove was replaced by new one.  Despite of several attempt made and notice given by the complainant, the opposite party has not replaced the said Gas stove by new one.  As such the opposite party had committed deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and claim to replace of new Gas stove and compensation and litigation charges.  The copy of legal notice issued by the complainant is filed as Ex.A2 and the postal acknowledgment of receipt of the opposite party was filed as Ex.A3.  As per proof affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the above documents filed by the complainant the allegation made by the complainant against the opposite party is proved.  Contrary to this there is no evidence on the part of the opposite party in this case, since they remained exparte, even after receipt of notice.   Therefore we are of the considered view that  as stated by the complainant the complaint mentioned Gas Stove which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party’s company was got fire when it was use for  cooking on 15.6.2014 and damaged fully within the warranty period.   Though the opposite party’s technician inspected the place and assured for replacing of the Gas stove, they have not replaced the gas stove.  Despite of several demand made by the complainant as such the opposite party had committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant is acceptable.  

4.     Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is directed to replace the complaint mentioned damaged Gas stove by a new one in a similar model and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

             In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The opposite party is  directed to  replace the compliant mentioned damaged  Gas Stove by a new one in a similar model and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the compensation amount of (Rs.5,000/) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order  passed till the date of realization. 

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 20^th    day of November   2015.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1-       -      - Copy of the warranty card

Ex.A2- 1.9.2014  - Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s

                            counsel.

 

Ex.A3-       -      - Copy of Acknowledgment card.

 

Ex.A4-       -      - Copy of bill.

 

 

Opposite party’s side  documents:   Nil   exparte)

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.