This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to take back the stove sold by him and to pay the price `4,900 to complainant together with `5,000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  Complainant paid `200 as advance for booking the stove exhibited in the stall of opposite party in the Polika Exhibition Nagar in Collectorate ground.  The price of the stove ‘Impex’ was `4800 but there was an exchange offer of `1000 for the old stove.  `100 more paid for the purpose of house delivery.  The technician of opposite party came to complainant’s house on 17.01.2012 and connected the stove obtaining the old stove and balance amount `3700.  When he used the stove it was found the position of pot on the stove was above 3.5 cm and the flame could not reach enough to provide sufficient heat.  Even if the valve opened in full swim the flame kept more distance with the pot as a result of which it was only heated the pot slowly.  In ordinary stove once it is started to boil the water it would go on boiling even if the gas flow kept in dim volume.  But that does not work in the impex stove due to the manufacturing defect.  Hence there is energy loss and also time loss.  Usage of more energy makes more expense as a permanent affair.  Hence it was reported but opposite party was not ready to replace another stove.  Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice from the Forum opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that complainant booked the article satisfying the quality fully on witnessing functioning of the same from the exhibition stall.   Afterwards when it was delivered at home it was shown functioning well before obtaining the balance amount.  The allegation of insufficient height with respect to the burner is not at all correct. There is no manufacturing defect for the stove.  Since there is no defect the complainant is not entitled for any remedy.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy?

3.     Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant in Ext.A1 to A3.  Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly complainant purchased a stove from opposite party for a price of `3800.  Complainant also paid `1000 as delivery charge.

          The main allegation of the complainant is that the gas stove purchased from the complainant does not function as other gas stove since the supply of flame does not provide sufficient heat for boiling.  Opposite party on the other hand contended that it is only a false allegation and there is no defect for the gas stove and it is working same as other stove of the same brand.

          Ext.A1 is the bill which shows the price of the stove is `4800.   Ext.A1 also reveals that the opposite party made delivery at home on charging an amount of `100 extra.  Ext.A2 is the warranty.  Ext.A3 is the advertisement.  There is no dispute with respect to the purchase, price or delivery and extra charge.  Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit in tone with his pleadings.  He was also entered in witness box and subjected to cross examination.  In cross examination he has deposed that the opposite party explained him the working but not shown working the same.  He has also deposed that the actual problem lies on the distance between the burner of the stove and the pot. Since there is high distance it takes more time for boiling and he deposed further that the defect was understood when they started cooking by using the stove.

          Opposite party did not entered in witness box.  He has neither oral or documentary evidence in order to substantiate his part of contentions.  The Forum directed to produce the stove before the Forum and in the presence of both parties used the disputed stove and that of the stove of the Forum which also a new one for boiling water and recorded the time of boiling water.  It is as follows:

1.     Stove of the Forum             12-40 --- 12-43 ½  = 3 ½ mts

2.     Stove of the Complainant   12-49 --- 12-55      = 6 mts.

In the light of the practical experiences of witnessing the trial test of heating water and the available evidence and the circumstances of the case we are under the impression that the functioning of the stove is quite unsatisfactory and opposite party is liable to refund `4800 together with a cost of `500 to complainant taking back the disputed stove.  Stove is an article which is meant for daily use.  If it is not fit for using comfortably the very purpose of purchasing the same is spoiled.  It is undoubtedly defective which deserves for replacement.  Since opposite party was not ready for replacement even during the attempt for settlement we are constrained to order to refund the amount.  Thus the issues No.1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the amount of price `4800 (Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred only) taking back the disputed stove and to pay `500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to get a further amount of `2500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation.  The complainant is also at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                     Sd/-                    Sd/-             Sd/-

President             Member       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Bill dated 14.01.2012.

A2.  Warranty card.

A3.  News paper advertisement.

Exhibits for the opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                      SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT