SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite party to replace the K0712 one piece toilet strap robbs or to refund the value of 2 numbers toilets closet for Rs.18,600/- to the complainant and compensation  and cost for a total  amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on his part.

The case of the complainant in brief

The complainant had purchased sanitary and plumbing items from OP’s shop on 18/06/2019 for an amount of Rs. 65,000/-.  Out of the items the complainant had purchased 2 closet for the bath rooms K0712 one piece toilet strap robbs in Kajaria-kerovit.  The value for one unit contains Rs.9,300/- each.  At the time of purchasing the closet OP give 10 year warranty to the product also.  Moreover the product have any defect, OP’s sales executive Shafeeq assured that the product will be replaced by the OP.

            The OP also admits that the product was good quality and there is no manufacturing defect.  But in short span of time one of the closet became defective and not in working condition.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to OP and the company also.  Then one of the technician came to complainant’s house and checked the closet.  The technician informed that the defect caused to the closet not in a manufacturing defect and they are not liable to replace the same.  The OP also stated that they are not liable to replace the defective closet.  The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence the complaint.

            After filing the complaint notice issued to OP.  OP received the notice and not appeared before the commission and not field version also. The commission had to hold that the OP have no version as such this case came to be proceed against the OP as set ex-arte.

            Even though the OP has remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by them against the OP. Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 4 documents marking them Ext. A1 to A4 and the complainant was examined as Pw1.  So the OP remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

            Le t us have a clear glance at the relevant document of the complainant.  Ext.A1 is the cash bill dated 18/06/219, the complainant had purchases sanitary items from OP’s shop for an amount of Rs.65,000/-.  In Ext.A2 is the warranty card of the manufacturing company Kajria Bath ware Pvt.Ltd.  It clearly stated that the warranty covers the repairing /replacement of all manufacturing defect under the warranty period.  As per Ext.A3 shows the photos of he closet to note that one of the closet is in defective.  But the technician not submitted the report regarding the defect of the closet.  In OP’s side no documents produced before the commission to show the defect is not manufacturing one.  In Ext.A4  is the sales order of 2 closet (K0712 one piece toilet strap robbs) worth Rs.9,300/- each per unit.  The MRP rate contain in Kajaria Kerovit one unit for Rs.13,250/-.  But the complainant had purchased the closet per unit for Rs.9,300/- only.  There after one of the closet is in a defective condition.  But the OP has not replaced the defective closet.  As per the warranty terms and condition the OP is liable to replace the new closet to complaint or the OP is bound to refund the amount to complainant.  But the OP fails to do.  There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the OP is directly bound to rederessal the grievances caused to the complainant.  So the complainant is entitled to get the value of one closet for Rs.9,300/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the  opposite party to refund Rs.9,300/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant and litigation cost   within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.9,300/- carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  After the said proceedings the opposite party is at liberty to take back the defective closet from the custody of the complainant.

Exts.

A1- Original bill

A2- Warranty card

A3- Photos (3 in Numbers)

A4- Sales order

          Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar