By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The complainant has stated his grievance as follows:-
1. On 11/05/2022, the complainant had purchased a pigeon glass cooktop gas stove from the first opposite party for Rs.2,521/- ( Rupees Two thousand five hundred and twenty one only). The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the subject product. The opposite parties provided 2 years warranty to the product. When the stove was brought to the house and tried to use then black smoke was come out of it and smell of gas also spread over there. It is stated that on 16/05/2022 the complainant had contacted the first opposite party directly and made complaint with regard to defect of the stove. The first opposite promised to contact the second opposite party to rectify the defect of the product. But no action was taken by the opposite parties. So the complainant was compelled to contact repeatedly the first opposite party. But the first opposite party informed the complainant that the defect was found in warranty period and so the responsibility was gone to the second opposite party. The first opposite party evaded negligently from his responsibility. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite parties did not rectify the defect of the product so far. The act of the opposite parties caused financial damage, mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,521/- to the complainant as the cost of the product and also claimed Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service . The complainant claimed another Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties. The complainant also claimed Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) from the opposite party as the expense incurred for travelling.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite parties. The first opposite party appeared and filed version. The second opposite party received notice on 27/06/2022 and not appeared before the Commission and did not file version. So the Commission set the second opposite party as exparte.
3. The first opposite party denied all allegations levelled against him and contended that complaint is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, the complaint was filed to extort money from him. It is admitted by the opposite party that the opposite party is a retailer of the product manufactured by the second opposite party. It is further stated by the opposite party that there was valid warranty period of two years prevailed and complaint was raised within the warranty period. The opposite party also admitted responsibility of the second opposite party to rectify the defect of the product as it was found during the time of warranty coverage. According to the opposite party the complainant had purchased the product on 11/05/2022 and received the complaint on 30/05/2022. The opposite party denied the allegation of deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. It is also stated by the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the complaint. It is also stated in the version that there should be a laboratory report to assess the complaint of the product. So the opposite party is prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the first opposite party filed affidavits to prove their respective contentions. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 and Ext.A2 documents. Ext. A1 document is the copy of tax invoice showing the payment of Rs.2,521/- made to the opposite parties at the time of purchase of gas stove. Ext. A2 document is the copy of warranty card issued by the opposite parties to the subject product. No documents were produced by the opposite party.
5. Heard both sides. Perused documents and affidavits. The following points arisen for the consideration of the Commission.
- Whether the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service?
- Relief and cost
6. Point No.1 and 2
The complainant stated that he had purchased a gas stove from the first opposite party which was manufactured by the second opposite party. The complainant produced the tax invoice issued by the first opposite party and same is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document shows that the complainant paid Rs.2,521/- for the gas stove . The complainant has produced copy of warranty card of the subject product and marked it as Ext.A2 document. Ext.A2 document shows that defect was found during the warranty period. The grievance of the complainant was that when the product was began to use black smoke had come out from the stove and gas also spread over there. It is also stated by the complainant that he immediately approached the first opposite party to rectify the defect but no action was taken by them so far. According to the opposite party, incident happened during the period of warranty coverage and so responsibility goes to the manufacturer, who is the second opposite party in these proceedings. It is admitted by the opposite party that he received a complaint on 30/05/2022 from the complainant in connection with the subject product purchased on 11/05/2022 by the complainant. The opposite party contended that there is no laboratory report on the defect of the product.
7. Going through evidence adduced by the parties in the proceedings, it can be found that the subject product was defective one as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party admitted that he received a complaint in connection with subject product. The Commission also finds that the defect was found within a short span of time from the date of purchase. As we know, gas stove is a product, which needs utmost care and protection to make use of it. Any kind of slightest defect may endanger the life of it’s user. In this situation, the Commission can find that the opposite parties had acted negligently. The first opposite party failed to establish the steps taken for rectify the defect of the subject product. The first opposite party cannot shift his responsibility towards the manufacturer in a perfunct manner. From the evidence, it can be seen that the complainant specifically alleged non attendance of the complaint by the opposite parties. Moreover there is no contra evidence from the side of the second opposite party. So the Commission finds that the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service. The complainant is proved his allegation raised against the opposite parties. The Commission also finds that the complainant had suffered mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties. So the Commission allows the complaint in the following manner.
1) The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.2,521/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred and twenty one only) to the complainant as the price of defective product sold to the complainant .
2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only ) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship resulted due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.
3) The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only ) as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
4) The opposite parties are directed to take back the subject product from the complainant in its present condition bearing the cost of transportation from the residence of the complainant.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order; otherwise the entire amount shall bear 9% of interest per annum from the date of order till realization
Dated this 26th day of May , 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayi .C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1and A2.
Ext.A1: Copy of tax invoice showing the payment of Rs.2,521/-.
Ext.A2: Copy of warranty card issued by the opposite parties to the subject product.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
