DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of January 2015
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 17/05/2014
(C.C.No.70/2014)
Baby Nair,
S/o.Late Neelakandan Nair,
House No.38, Mythri Nagar,
Nurani, Palakkad – 678004 - Complainant
(Adv.P.C.Sivadas)
Vs
1.Proprietor,
M/s.M.K.Home Appliances,
Opp.Water Authority Office,
Kalmandapam Junction,
Palakkad – 1
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)
2.Manager,
M/s.TTK Prestige Ltd.,
XXXXV/1953,1954, Mareena Building,
M.G.Road, Ravipuram,
Ernakulam -682016
(Authorised Person)
3.Manager
M/s.TTK Prestige Ltd.,
VRK Chambers,
198 & 198/1, 4th Cross,
Lalbagh Road,
Bangalore – 560 027 - Opposite parties
(Authorised Person)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:
On 22/8/2012 the complainant had purchased a Prestige Royale 3 burner gas stove model of GT03L SI.No.2E024735 for Rs.5180/- from the 1st opposite party. Opposite parties 2 & 3 are the manufacturers of the stove. At the time of purchase, opposite parties stated that the glass is of heat restrained in nature, it will not have any adverse effect while in use and the glass will not burst at any point of time. The stove has 2 years of warranty. On believing the words of opposite parties complainant purchased the stove. But on 4/5/2014 at about 8.30 p.m glass top of the stove started to break and glass pieces were spread all over the kitchen. The person in the kitchen was narrowly escaped from serious accident. On 5/5/2014 complainant informed the matter to 1st opposite party and they directed to produce the stove. They repaired the stove and demanded Rs.1800/- from the complainant. But the warranty period was not over. Complainant submitted demanding the cost of repair within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Moreover the complainant demanded a new stove which is not covered by glass. But the opposite parties are not ready to replace the stove. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to
1. Pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation
2. Replace the stove which is not having glass cover or to return back
the cost of the stove
3. Pay cost of this complaint.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
1st opposite party admitted the purchase of stove from them and submitted that there is no manufacturing defects to the stove. 1st opposite party is only liable for bill warranty. In the warranty card it is clearly stated that there is no warranty coverage to the glass top of the product. The breaking of the glass top is procured only due to the mishandling by the complainant for which the opposite parties are not liable. The complainant has used the product for 20 months without fail. On receiving complaint, 1st opposite party immediately reported it to 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. As per the direction of opposite parties 2 & 3, 1st opposite party directed the complainant to approach authorized service centre. Then the complainant approached the service centre. Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of 1st opposite party.
Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed version. 2nd & 3rd opposite parties are also admitted the purchase of the stove. They submitted that the alleged complaint occurred after 20 months from the date of purchase, not within a few days. So it is not a manufacturing defect. Due to the negligent handling of the user the glass top of stove was damaged. It is also submitted that the toughened glass top of stove is not under warranty and then it can only be replaced by chargeable basis. The complainant is fully aware of the fact. After getting complainant’s permission authorized service centre replaced the glass on chargeable basis on 7/5/2014. But the complainant failed to collect the repaired stove after making payment. Hence there is no deficiency on service from the part of opposite parties 2 & 3. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavit . Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant.
Issues are to be considered
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
- If so, what is the relief ?
Heard both parties.
Issues 1 & 2
We have perused the documents on record. Opposite parties admitted the purchase of stove. As per Ext.A3 the warranty period is not over. But as per the condition of Ext.A3 the toughened glass is not covered under warranty. The terms and condition of warranty is a binding contract between the consumer and manufacturer. Moreover the complainant used the stove for 20 months without any damage. Hence we cannot say that the stove has any manufacturing defect. Besides this the opposite parties repaired the stove on 7/5/2014 and intimate the complainant to collect the stove after making payment. Hence we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of January 2015.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Bill issued by Yemkay Home Appliances dated 22/8/2012
Ext.A2 – Copy of Service card issued to the complainant dated 7/5/2014
Ext.A3 – Warranty Card Original
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost (Allowed)
No cost allowed.
