CC Filed on 04.02.2011

         Disposed on 16.09.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.

Dated:  16^th day of September 2011

PRESENT:

                        HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH,  President.

  HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA,  Member.

       HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA,  Member.

---

Consumer Complaint No. 11/2011

Between:

ORDER

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The complainant contends that on 26.12.2009 he purchased a Mixer from the Opposite Party No.1 by paying cash of Rs.2,250/-.   It is stated that at that time there was a exchange offer by Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 took the old Mixer for Rs.1,000/- and sold the new Mixer by taking Rs.2,250/-.   There was warranty for a period of two years.

2. It is stated that within a period of two months after the purchase of appliance, it did not function properly and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and brought to his notice about non-functioning of the appliance and the Opposite Party No.1 promised that he will repair the same.    After about a week, the Opposite Party No.1 returned the appliance stating that it is set right or rectified the defect.   The complainant believing the words of the Opposite Party No.1 took back the appliance and the again the appliance became defunct and again the complainant brought it to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 for rectifying the defect and after period of 10 days the Opposite Party No.1 returned the appliance stating that the mistake is rectified and attended to.   Inspite of it, the appliance was not functioning and the complainant again took it to the Opposite Party No.1 on 26.07.2010 and asked the Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the mistake and the Opposite Party No.1 instead of attending to the complaints, gave rude answers to the complainant and when the complainant questioned the Opposite Party No.1 about his behaviour, threatened the complainant and told him that he may do whatever he wants.    It is stated that as the Mixer has failed to work within the warranty period, it amounts to deficiency in service.    Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to Opposite Parties to replace the Mixer or to repay the bill amount with compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

3. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 filed its version and admitted that the Mixer has been purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.1.    OP.3 has remained absent and he has been placed ex-parte.     The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 contends that the complainant never brought the Mixer for repairs with Opposite Party No.1 and because of it, there is no question of any deficiency in service.   The warranty is applicable only if there is a manufacturing defect and not otherwise.    Hence the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

4. The points that arise for our consideration are:

Point No.1:  Whether the complainant has proved the alleged    

                     deficiency in service by the OP?

Point No.2:  To what order?

            5.  Our findings to these points are as hereunder:

1.      Affirmative

2.      As per final order.

R E A S O N S

6. POINT NO.1: In our opinion the contention of the complainant that he has taken the Mixer for repairs on three occasions and it was repaired on two occasions and inspite of it, it did not work and when he took it on the third occasions, Opposite Party No.1 refused to attend the complaint, is prima-facie acceptable,  having regard to the probabilities of the case.   If there was no such complaint in its working and if the Opposite Party No.1 had never refused to repair it, there would be no reason for the complainant to come up with this complaint.    Hence unless such omission is made by the Opposite Parties, the complainant would not have come up by filing this complaint.   Hence based on the probabilities of the case, this contention of the complainant is acceptable.   As the Opposite Parties is denying the contention that the Mixer was not brought for repairs, it may be presumed that the Opposite Parties ought to have subsequently refused to repair the same.   Admittedly the appliance is within the warranty period, hence when there was a mistake in non-functioning of the apparatus, it was the duty of the seller to rectify that mistakes, when such mistakes was occasioned within the warranty period.    Hence refusal to do so, clearly amounts to a deficiency in service.   Hence this point is held in favour of the complainant.

7. POINT NO.2:   In view of the finding on Point No.1, the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for.    In our opinion, having regard to the attitude of the Opposite Party No.1, in refusing to repair the mistake, it will not be proper to again direct the Opposite Parties to repair the same or to replace the appliance.    We are of the opinion that the proper relief is to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the bill amount of Rs.2,250/-  with reasonable interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint until repayment and pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- for the deficiency in service and also pay costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant.    The complainant shall return the appliance to the Opposite Party No.1 before receiving the awarded amount.    Hence we pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed.    The OP.1 to 3 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,250/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 04.02.2011 until actual payment.    The Opposite Parties shall pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.500/-.     The complainant shall return the Mixer to the Opposite Party No.1 before receiving the awarded amount.

            Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16^th day of September 2011.

T. NAGARAJA                        K.G.SHANTALA           T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH  

   MEMBER                                 MEMBER                              PRESIDENT