ORDER<br /> <br /> This petition is filed under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to replace the defective Mixi or to refund the cost of the Mixi Rs 3990/- with compensation of Rs 3000/- and cost.<br /> <br /> The compllainant's case in brief are as follows:- The complainant had purchased a Supra Mixi Srl.No.2343 from opposite party NO.1 on 7.1.2005 for Rs 3990/-. A guarantee card for one year was issued. The compllainant found crack on the lid and on the body and the mixi was taken to opposite party no.1 but he directed the complainant to the service centre of opposite party 2 . He kept the mixi there and returned after two days replacing the lid only. Body was not changed since spare parts were not available. The work done was entered in the guarantee card on 12.4.2005. The complainant was asked to contact after some time. The complainant contacted the opposite parties several times. But they replied spare parts were not available. On 11th December 2005 when the complainant went to opposite party 2 she found the centre of opposite party 2 was closed down. Then opposite party 1 was contacted and he kept the mixi there. The complainant was asked to enquire after 2 days. The complainant thereafter enquired several occasions but opposite party didnot give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter complainant met opposite party no.1 personally but he replied rudely that spare parts have not come and therefore it cannot be repaired. The mixi is still held by opposite party no.1. The complainant further says that she has used the mixi only in a limited manner upto April 2005. The opposite party sold her low quality product and had not cared to repair or replace as per the guarantee. This is clearly an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So that the complainant was entitled to get Rs 3000 as compensation. The opposite party is liable to replace the defective mixi or refund the cost of Rs 3990/-.<br /> <br /> After receiving notice from the Froum, opposite party no.1 made appearance and notice to opposite party 2 returned. Publication allowed.Subsequently opposite party no.2 declared exparte and the matter continuously posted for settlement thrice. Thereafter complainant filed a petition stating that she is not pressing any relief against opposite party 2 and prayed to withdraw substituted service ordered. Thus opposite party 2 was deleted. Subsequently opposie party 1 also called absent and set exparte.<br /> <br /> The main question tobe decided is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainantis entitled for relief as prayed in the complaint.<br /> <br /> Oral evidence was not adduced by the complainant.Chief affidavit was filed and Ext.A1 and A2 marked as documentary evidence on the part of the complainant.<br /> <br /> The complainant purchased a Supra Mixi Sl.No.2343 from opposite party 1 on 7.1.2005 for Rs 3990/-. Ext.A1 is the cash bill issued in the name of the complainant.This is a document sufficient enough to prove that the complainant purchased the Supra Mixi from opposite party 1 on 7.1.2005 . Ext.A2, guarantee terms makes it clear that mixi was guaranteed for 12 months from the date of purchase against any defects arising due to workmanship or material in manufacturing of this product. Since crack was found on the lid and body of the mixi , the same was taken to opposite party 1 and he directed the complainant to the service centre of opposite party 2. The mixi was kept there and returned it after 2 days replacing lid only. Body was not changed since spare parts were not available. The work carried out was recorded in the guarantee card on 12.4.2005. The complainant was asked to contact after some time. The complainant contacted the opposite parties severaltimes but same answer, spare parts were not available, was repeated.Atlast the service centre of opposite party 2 was found closed on 11thDecember 2005. Complainant then contacted opposite party 1 and he kept the mixi there and asked to contact after two days. Failing all attempts to contact opposite party thereafter complainant directly went and met opposite party 1. But she had met with bitter experience. The opposite party replied rudely and irresponsibly saying that spare parts have not come and therefore cannot be replaced or repaired. The mixi is still with opposite party 1. There is no doubt that it is the liability of opposite party 1 to replace or repair the mixi. Till today opposite party has not any interest to repair or replace the mixi.This conduct of the opposite party is clearly an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.Hence the opposite party is liable to replace the mixiof the same value or else to refund the cost of the mixi. The complainant is also entitled forRS 250/- as cost of this proceedings.<br /> <br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to replace the mixi of the same value to the complainantor else to refund the cost of Rs 3990/-together with a sum of Rs 250/- as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order in accordance with the provisions of the Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER<br /> <br /> Appendix <br /> <br /> Exhibits for the complainant <br /> <br /> A1. Photo copy of the cash bill dt. 7.1.2005 issued by the opposite party 1.<br /> A2. Photo copy of the guarantee terms issued by the opposite party<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the opposite party -Nil<br /> <br /> Witnesses examined on either side -Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> Forwarded/by order <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT <br />