MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Instant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in Complaint Case No. 313/2014 allowing the complaint on contest ex parte against the Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 and Appellant/O.P. No. 2 with cost and directions narrated in the order.

          The case of the Complainant, in brief, was that the Respondent No. 1/Complainant had purchased built-in oven of Model No. FBI058hKF, a built in Micro oven of Model No. FMW 250AXGRX 8 and a Kent Grand Plus water filter, all being the components of kitchen appliances, at a cost of Rs.23,700/-, 28,700/- and 16,000/- respectively from the Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 on 14.09.2013 through payment of total cost of Rs.68,400/- only, partly in cheque and partly by cash.  The built-in micro oven was purchased with the warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase against the manufacturing defect.

          The said kitchen appliances which were installed by the Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 started malfunctioning immediately after installation.  The Respondent No. 1/Complainant informed the matter to the Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 and Appellant/O.P. No. 2 who, in spite of being so informed, took no initiative to attend the call for taking necessary corrective measure which, as alleged, amounted to deficiency in rendering services by the Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 and Appellant/O.P. No. 2.  The aggrieved Respondent No. 1/Complainant then, finding no alternative, lodged the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which led to originate the impugned judgment and order under challenge in the instant appeal.

          Heard the appeal ex parte against the Respondent No. 1/Complainant and Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1.

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 describing in brief, the facts in issue, submitted that the impugned order was passed upon the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 although the complaint was mainly targeted against the Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1.

          He was more critical against the impugned order as, what was alleged, the order was directed in respect of all the articles purchased when the complaint was mainly against only one article – the built in micro oven and the complaint itself at para 3 was categorical about the said article was having warranty of 12 months against manufacturing defect.  In fact, as contended, one of the appliances – Kent Grand Plus Water Filter – was not the product of the manufacturing unit of the Appellant/O.P. No. 2.

          The complaint, as contended, was devoid of any expert opinion confirming the manufacturing defect, as alleged.  The impugned judgment and order, as the Ld. Advocate continued, was passed evidently with material irregularity in the above perspective.          

          The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

          Perused the papers on record.  Considered submissions of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 and consulted the LCR.  It appeared that the complaint petition which, prima facie, directed towards non-functioning of the micro oven, contained prayer for refund of the cost involved with all the three appliances along with compensation and litigation cost.

          The Kent Water Purifier, since was not of the product of the Appellant/O.P. No. 2, the complaint in respect of the said item should not be considered as an issue.  The same should be also in respect of the oven against which the complaint appeared to have not been directed.

          Therefore, the issue was limited to the extent of defective micro oven valued at Rs.28,700/- only.  The papers available with the instant Appeal as well as the LCR did not reveal anything which might contradict the findings of the Ld. District Forum, of course, in respect of that particular item.

          The papers did not reveal anything which might lead us to assume that the Appellant/O.P. No. 1 was not aware of the malfunctioning of the defective unit.  In the submission too, the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 did not controvert the claim of his client being duly informed by the Respondent No. 1/Complainant about the malfunctioning of the said appliances.  The record, however, did not reveal that suitable step was at all taken in repairing the defective unit which did not tell good of the services rendered by the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 and Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1.

          Above being our observations, we feel that the impugned judgment and order needs to be suitably modified.

          Hence, ordered, that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 and ex parte against the Respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by them jointly and severally to the Respondent No. 1/Complainant.  Both of them are further directed to replace the defective micro oven of the same model or the entire cost of Rs.28,700/- in respect of the said micro oven along with simple interest @9% per annum from the date of installation of the micro oven till the date of the instant order on return of the defective micro oven within 45 days hence, failing which, further simple interest @ 9% shall accrue to Rs.28,700/- being the cost of the micro oven, and interest accrued in terms of the above directions from the date of default till the entire cost is fully realized.  The part of the impugned order directing punitive cost is hereby set aside.  The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly.

          LCR be returned along with a copy of the judgment forthwith.