DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008<br /> <br /> Present: Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.58/2007<br /> P.R.Prakasan,<br /> S/o.Raghavan,<br /> Punnyatheertham,<br /> Paramount Garden,<br /> Pirayiri, Palakkad Taluk,<br /> Palakkad. - Complainant<br /> (Adv.M.R.Manikantan)<br /> Vs<br /> <br /> 1.M/s.TASA DECOR<br /> D-1103, J.N.International Stadium,<br /> Kaloor, Kochi – 682017.<br /> <br /> 2.M/s.CATA Appliances Ltd.,<br /> No.18, Wing-F, Block A,<br /> Local Shopping Centre,<br /> Ring Road, Naraina Vihar,<br /> New Delhi – 110 028. - Opposite parties<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> <br /> Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant in this case has purchased a gas stove and chimney worth Rs.16,890/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand eight hundred and ninety only) on 13.05.2006 from the 1st opposite party, who is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party. The direct marketing agents of the opposite parties approached the complainant at Palakkad and persuaded him to purchase the products and then he purchased the products. At the time of purchase, the 1st opposite party issued two separate warranty card for each products which bears a warranty for 24 months from the date of its purchase. The complainant had purchased the products for his newly built home. On 03.09.2006, the house warming day, when the complainant tried to ignite the gas stove it was found that the fourth knob from the left end of the gas stove was not functioning. On the same day itself the complainant informed the 1st opposite party about the non functioning and the 1st opposite party intimated the complainant to contact the representatives of 2nd opposite party as the non functioning might be due to a manufacturing defect. Contacting the representatives of 2nd opposite party, the representatives verified the products and assured him that he would come with the company mechanics and rectify the defects. But the assurance was not carried out by the 2nd opposite party inspite of repeated demands. The complainant caused a registered lawyer notice to the opposite parties to take immediate remedial measures to get the gas stove repaired or replaced by new one. The said notice was duly served on the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party returned the same as refused. Complainant further stated that the opposite parties neither repaired the gas stove nor cared to send any reply to the complainant. According to the the complainant the act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.16,890/-, the price of the gas stove and chimney, to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and loss of time.<br /> <br /> After admission, notices were sent to opposite parties for their appearance. Though notice was served on both opposite parties 1st opposite party did not appear before this forum and hence made exparte. Though 2nd opposite party entered appearance on 26.06.2007 and proposed to file vakalath, no vakalath and version was filed.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. <br /> <br /> Heard the complainant and perused all relevant documents on record. It is true from Ext.A1, that the complainant had purchased a gas stove and chimney for an amount of Rs.16,890/- from the 1st opposite party on 13.05.2006. the warranty card issued to the complainant marked as Ext.A2 bears a warranty of 24 months from the date of purchase of the product. According to the complainant, the non functioning was noticed on 03.09.2006 which was within the period of warranty. The lawyer notice dtd.13.03.2007 marked as Ext.A3 series shows that the non functioning of the stove was intimated to opposite parties within the period of warranty. 1st opposite party has refused to accept the lawyer notice and the unserved notice is marked as Ext.A4. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service as the opposite parties had intentionally neglected to affect necessary repairs to the gas stove or replace the same which they are legally bound.<br /> <br /> With respect to the chimney, complainant has not pointed out any defect. Hence it is not considered in this case.<br /> <br /> In the above circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the gas stove, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainant within a period one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.10,990/- (Rupees Ten thousand nine hundred and ninety only) being the price of the gas stove, a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost along with interest @ 8% per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of March, 2008 <br /> <br /> President (Sd)<br /> Member (Sd) <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 – Bill dtd.13.05.2006<br /> Ext.A2 (Series) – Warranty card for stove and chimney<br /> Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyer notice with postal receipt and acknowledgement<br /> Ext.A4 – Unserved notice with endorsement “refused”<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties<br /> Nil<br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as costs to the complainant <br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order, <br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent <br />