IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C.No.99/2014 (Filed on 24.07.2014)
Between:
Aji Thomas Koshy,
S/o. V.T. Koshy,
Malayil Valiyakalayil House,
Kalleli.P.O., Konni Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist.,
Rep. by his P/A holder,
V.T. Koshy,
-do. –do.
(By Adv. Bindu. N. Rajan) ….. Complainant
And:
- Manager,
RAK Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd.,
288, M.R. Arcade,
Pathadipalam, NH 47,
Chengampuzha Nagar,
Edappally, Kochi,
Pin – 682 039.
- Mathew Cherian,
Managing Director,
Cherian & Co.,
Pathanamthitta Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk. ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:- Complainant purchased two compact model closets of the 1st opposite party through their dealer, the second opposite party on 15-04-2013 by paying Rs.7,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively. In addition to that, universal seat cover for the said product worth Rs.2,999.99/- were also purchased. Though the closets were purchased on 15-04-2013, the same was fixed in the newly built house of the complainant only on 07-02-2014 after the completion of the construction of the house. The moment the closets were fixed, foul smell started emanating from both the said closets. The plumber who fixed the closets was directed to remove it due to the foul smell. Due to the malfunctioning of the closets the seat covers bought for the closets also became useless. Complainant could not even use it for once.
3. At the time of purchase the second opposite party made the complainant to believe that the product of the 1st opposite party is having 5 years warranty. Complainant issued a notice to the second opposite party. But they have not taken any steps to solve the problem of the complainant. Finally Complainant issued a legal notice to the first opposite party. But they have not replied, nor have give any attention to resolve the grievance of the complainant. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting a total amount of Rs.36,999.99/- as compensation with 12% interest and cost of the proceedings.
4. In this case opposite parties are exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint, the only question to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A7. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
7. The point:- Complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that on 15-04-2013 he had purchased two compact model closets of the first opposite party through their dealer the second opposite party by paying Rs.13,000/-. In addition to that universal seat cover for the said product worth Rs.2,999.99/- were also purchased. Though the closets were purchased on 15-04-2013, the same was fixed in the newly built house of the complainant only on 07-02-2014. Both the products were not working properly. The moment the closets were fixed, foul smell started emanating from both the said closets. Due to its foul smell the same is kept in the bathroom covered. Complainant could not use it for once. At the time of purchase, 2nd opposite party made the complainant to believe that the product is having 5 years warranty. So the complainant send a registered letter to the 2nd opposite party in this regard. There was no response from 2nd opposite party. Finally complainant issued a legal notice to the 1st opposite party. Even though the opposite party received the notice they have not given any attention to resolve the grievance of the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant’s power of attorney holder filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 7 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit the said documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Ext A1 is the power of attorney dated 09-09-2013 in the name of Mr.V.T Koshy. Ext.A2 is the retail invoice, dated 15-04-2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of the notice dated 11-04-2014 issued by the power of attorney holder of the complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext.A4 is the postal receipt dated 15-04-2013 in respect of Ext.A3. Ext.A5 is the copy of legal notice dated 20-06-2014 issued by the complainant to 1st opposite party. Ext A6 is the postal receipt of Ext A5 dated 23.06.2014. Ext. A7 is the postal acknowledgment card of Ext A5.
9. On a perusal of Ext A2 it is seen that complainant had purchased products costing Rs.2,46,911/- from the 1st opposite party. Out of that products the complaint is only about item No.19 and item No.20 in Ext.A2. The said products are defective. But opposite parties did not cared to replace the same in spite of the complainant’s request. According to the complainant, the 2nd opposite party made him to believe that the product is having 5 years warranty. As per Ext.A3 to A7, it is evident that complainant made several efforts to resolve his grievance through the 1st and 2nd opposite party. But they have not turned up. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service towards the customer.
10. Since opposite parties are exparte, there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. Hence we find that opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the non settlement of the complainant’s grievances. Therefore this complaint is allowable.
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to replace the defective closets along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the closets and seat cover amounting Rs.15,999/- and the cost and compensation ordered herein above with 10% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of September, 2014.
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member – I)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) :
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) :
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of the
power of attorney holder.
A2 : Retail invoice dated 15-04-2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party
to the complainant.
A3 : Notice dated 11-04-2014 issued by the P/A holder of the
complainant to 2nd opposite party.
A4 : Postal receipt dated 15-04-2013.
A5 : Legal notice dated 20-06-2014 issued by the complainant to 1st
opposite party.
A6 : Postal receipt of Ext A5 dated 23.06.2014.
A7 : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext A5.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) V.T. Koshy, Malayil Valiyakalayil House,
Kalleli.P.O., Konni Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.,
- Manager, RAK Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd.,
288, M.R. Arcade, Pathadipalam, NH 47,
Chengampuzha Nagar, Edappally, Kochi,
Pin – 682 039.
- Mathew Cherian, Managing Director, Cherian & Co.,
Pathanamthitta Village, Kozhencherry Taluk.
(4) The Stock File.
