By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows:-

The Complainant purchased a Shelf manufactured by Godrej Company paying Rs.20,000/- from the Opposite Party on 30.04.2009. At the time of purchasing, the salesman of Opposite Party assured that the Shelf made by Godrej Company in the best available in the market and its lock is very strong and safe. Life long warranty also was assured by the salesman for the shelf. The Opposite Party promised 2 years free service in case of any complaint with the lock.

2. The Complainant thus purchased the safe and while using the same, the lock went defective and loosened with the handle itself. Then the Complainant approached Opposite Party and asked him to repair the defect. But the Opposite Party refused this request.

3. Without proper lock, the safe is not good for use. The Complainant has incured financial loss and mental pain. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Complainant. Therefore the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to return the price of the safe Rs.20,000/- with 12% interest and a compensation of Rs.10,000/-

4. The Opposite Party filed version and admitted the sale of shelf to the Complainant. The Opposite Party or the Godrej company never offered any warranty or guarantee to the shelf as alleged. Even then the manufacturer offered free service to their products for one year from the date of purchase. On the complaint of the Complainant technician of the company rushed to the house of the Complainant to check the complaint. But the Complainant did not permitted the technician to see the shelf. Then the Complainant filed this complaint. As per the direction of this Forum the Opposite Party tested the defects of the shelf. On verification, it was found that the complaint of the lock is due to the loosening of the quarter pin of lock assembly which was caused due to the careless and rough use of the lock. This complaint can be rectified by tightening the screw of the assembly for which the Complainant did not permitted the technician. The alleged complaint is only due to the loosening of the screw which may be caused due to the rough use or can be purposefully made by any person. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Complainant. Hence the Opposite Party prays for dismissing the complaint with compensatory cost.

5. The Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the Complainant. The Commissioner appointed by the Forum inspected the shelf and submitted the report which was marked as Ext.C1. A witness was examined on the side of the Opposite Party as OPW1.

6. The matters to be decided are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

7. Point No.1:- As per Ext.C1, there is clear defect with the shelf Commissioner makes it clear that the defect is not due to any mishandling. The Opposite Party states that he or the company give no warranty or guarantee regarding the quality of the shelf. It is not fair on the part of the Opposite Party or Godrej company not giving any type of warranty or guarantee regarding the quality of a shelf which costs Rs.20,000/-. Hence point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party.

8. Point No.2:- The Complainant is entitled to get an amount equal to the price of the shelf. He is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and reasonable costs.

Hence, the Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant an amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One thousand only) and a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) the total amount being Rs.21,500/- (Rupees Twenty One thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay an interest on the ordered amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment. On payment of the ordered amount, the Complainant is directed to return the shelf to the Opposite Party at cost of the Complainant.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2011.

Date of filing:23.02.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Aneesh Antony Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Girish Technician, Godrej Company.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Bill. dt:30.04.2009.

C1. Inspection Report. dt:18.02.2011.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.