By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. According to complainant on 02-12-04 he purchased a Mixie paying Rs.2,350/- from the shop of second opposite party. After one week the mixie developed snags and stopped functioning. Complainant approached second opposite party who repaired it. On the eighth day the mixie again stopped functioning which was again repaired by second opposite party. The defect and repair of mixie continued several times. Lastly on 21-10-05 complainant entrusted the mixie to 2nd opposite party as it had stopped functioning. Complainant demanded for replacement or refund which was not needed to by second opposite party. Hence the complaint, praying for refund or replacement of the mixie along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Both opposite parties filed separate version. The purchase of mixie from second opposite party is admitted. Opposite parties specifically deny that the product has any manufacturing defect. The allegation that the mixie became defective after one week of purchase and that it was repaired by second opposite party several times is denied as false. Complainant had brought the mixie defective to the shop of second opposite party only in October, 2005. On examination it was found that complainant had caused repair of mixie by unauthorised persons during the warranty period itself, which is breach of warranty condition. The mixie was thereby taken back by the complainant. Ist opposite party was ready to replace the mixie if there was any manufacturing defect. After receiving notice from this Forum opposite parties tried their level best to contact the complainant who was not willing even to talk to opposite parties. That this litigation is only a deliberate attempt to harm the good reputation of the Company.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and separate counter affidavits filed by both opposite parties. Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked on behalf of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 4. The price of the mixie and purchase of the same from the shop of second opposite party is admitted. Complainant's say is that the mixie became defective and stopped functioning after a week of it's purchase. That second opposite party repaired it and the mixie was repaired several times during<br /> <br /> <br /> its' warranty period itself. These allegations are specifically denied by second opposite party and contends that the mixie was brought defective by the complainant only in the month of October in 2005 ie., after almost ten months of it's purchase. When the mixie was brought by complainant second opposite party found that it was repaired by some unauthorised persons during the warranty period which is a breach of warranty condition. Both opposite parties have emphatically denied that the mixie has any manufacturing defect. It is the burden of the complainant to prove that the mixie has manufacturing defect. Complainant has not taken any steps to prove manufacturing defect. Apart from the evidence tendered through affidavit there is no evidence to show that the mixie was repaired several times during its' warranty period. Opposite parties also contend that coming to know of the complaint they offered to replace the mixie but complainant did not accede to their offer and demanded huge amount. Admittedly the mixie was brought as defective to the shop of second opposite party during its' warranty period and it had been repaired prior to this. It can be inferred that the product is not of sufficient quality. On payment of consideration complainant is entitled to a product which is defect free. We find complainant is entitled to replacement of the mixie. At this juncture evidence tendered by opposite parties through affidavit, supported by sufficient pleading that they had offered to replace the mixie becomes material. The question whether trader is guilty of committing unfair trade practice arises only when he denies to replace the defective item. Opposite parties were ready to resolve the dispute and redress the grievance of the consumer at the earliest, but complainant was not willing to accept the offer of replacement. This case was taken up in the weekend adalath conducted by the Forum. Opposite parties reiterated their offer to replace the mixie but complainant was not amnenable for settlement. In our view, it is of paramount importance that while granting reliefs to consumers those who provide goods or services are to be dealt with justly and fairly. From the above discussions, we hold that first opposite party who is the manufacturer is liable to replace the mixie to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. In the result, complaint allowed. We order first opposite party to replace the mixie to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On payment complainant shall return the defect alleged mixie to first opposite party.<br /> <br /> Dated this 11th 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 /> <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 and A2<br /> Ext.A1 : Cash bill No.1464 dated, 02-12-04 for Rs.2,350/- received from<br /> second opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : Warranty card received from second opposite party to complainant.<br /> .second opposite party to complainant.<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 /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />