IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of May, 2015
Filed on 27.09.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.242/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Baiju Thajudheen Proprietor
Penathu Veli Vembad Home Appliances
Ward No.20 Shop No. XV/32 C
Mannencherry P.O. Mannancherry
Alappuzha 688 538 Alappuzha
(By Adv. Shijimol. M.C.)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant purchased an induction cooker from the opposite party on 16.9.2011. The opposite party assured one year warranty and 5 years free service. After 34 months from the date of purchase of the said product it became defective. The complainant entrusted the said product to the opposite party for repairing. The opposite party collected an amount Rs.420/- towards repairing charges. But 3 days after the repairing, the product became again functionless. Complainant entrusted the same to the opposite party for repairing it again but after 45 days the opposite party gave back the product to the complainant saying that it could not be repaired. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party and the opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. The version in short is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The induction cooker was supplied by Lan Mark Wholesale company and the opposite party is not liable for the defect of the product. The opposite party is only a dealer. It was further submitted that the opposite party has not charged an amount of Rs.420/- towards repairing charges as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party is not at all liable to repair the product free of cost. The complainant should bear the cost of the spare parts. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. No oral or documentary evidence were produced on the side of the opposite party.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite party, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
5. The case of the complainant is that he purchased an induction cooker from the opposite party which is having one year warranty and 5 years free service. The product became defective and opposite party charged an amount of Rs.420/- towards repairing. But just after 3 days from the date of repairing, it became again functionless and the same was entrusted to the opposite party. But it was returned to the complainant without repairing it saying that it could not be repaired. Hence the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. From the document produced by the complainant it can be seen that the complainant purchased the induction cooker from the opposite party on 16.9.2011. for an amount of Rs.2300/-. In Ext.A3 it is clearly stated the said product is having one year warranty and 5 years free service. The specific case of the complainant is that he paid an amount of Rs.420/- towards repairing charge, but just after 3 days from the date of repairing it became functionless. According to the complainant, since the product became again functionless within 3 days after repairing, the opposite party has not properly repaired it. When the complainant asked the opposite party to repair it again they informed the complainant it could not be repaired or he has to pay additional charges for repair. The opposite party cannot wash off his hands from liability by merely saying that he is only a dealer of the said product. According to the complainant the said induction cooker became functionless from the third day after repairing. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.420/- towards repairing and now he could not use the induction cooker. As per Ext.A 1 the product is having 5 years free service, since the opposite party refused to repair the product within the said period the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The complainant is fully entitled to get it repaired free of cost. Since there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost from the opposite party. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to rectify the defects of the product at free of cost. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Baiju Thajudheen (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Warranty card
Ext.A2 - Cash invoice for Rs.2300/-
Ext.A3 - Instruction manual
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-pg/-
