By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the Opposite Parties to take back the Butterfly Induction Cooker and return  the money to the Complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The complainant's case in brief as follows:- The complainant purchased Butterfly Ace Power Hob Induction Cooker manufactured by 1^st Opposite Party from the shop owned by 2^nd Opposite Party in the month of September 2011. 3^rd Opposite Party is the Manager of the shop and 4^th Opposite Party is the sale executive. 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties induced the complainant to purchase the cooker. The cooker have one year warranty. While the Complainant's mother-in-law Leela was using the cooker on 15.12.2011, at about 7.30 AM, the induction cooker bursted in front of the touch key section with heavy noise and the Complainant's mother-in-law who was cooking coffee by standing near the cooker got deep injuries on her right portion of head. Due to the incident, she is heavily injured and due the shock she become unconscious, blood from forehead spread in the kitchen. Then she was taken to Good Shaphered Hospital Vythiri and treated there. The bursting of Cooker happened due to the manufacturing and mechanical defect of the Butterfly Induction Cooker which is manufactured by 1^st Opposite Party. So there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice send to 4^th Opposite party is unclaimed and 4^th Opposite Party is set exparte on 25.02.2012. In the version of 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party, stated that the product is having one year warranty for any manufacturing defect. The complainant did not mention the exact date of purchase, invoice number, name of purchaser etc in the complaint. The Complainant stated the facts that is incorrect and contradictory manner in the complaint. The complainant informed the 2^nd Opposite Party about the alleged incident on 14.12.2011. But the date of incident stated in complaint is 15.12.2011. Therefore, it is very clear that the Complainant had approached the Forum with incorrect facts. The alleged incident is denied by 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party states that there is no probability for explosion in the induction Hob. The Hob was using for more than 3 months before the alleged incident. The induction Hob is generating heat only due to electric magnetic waver . Even if voltage becomes very high or low, the said safety device SMPS in the gadget will isolate the power supply and automatically it will get fused and switch off the unit. Therefore as alleged in the petition that the said induction Hob exploded with heavy noise was not at all believable. So the petitioner has suppressed the true facts and preferred false complaint against the Opposite parties to get unlawful gain. The 1^st Opposite Party denies all the allegation in the complaint. More over, the 1^st Opposite party states that the complainant cannot raise a question of manufactury defect after the use of the Hob for more than 3 months. According to the 1^st Opposite Party the complainant informed about the incident on 14.12.2011 and 4^th Opposite Party was informed by the 1^st Opposite Party to inspect the Hob. Then the 4^th Opposite Party contacted the petitioner though mobile phone, on 14.12.2011 itself for a permission to inspect. But due to the inconvenience of complainant, inspection was not done on that day. Thereafter on 16.12.2011, the complainant permitted for an inspection to one Mr. Deepak Babu and this Deepak Babu inspected the Induction Hob and found that it is working. The petitioner hesitated to sign the job sheet. So Opposite Parties contents that there is no bonofied in the petition and the petition may be dismissed with cost. 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties also denies all the allegation in the complaint

4. On perusal of complaint, version etc, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of

Opposite Parties?

2. What order as to cost and compensation?

5. Point No.1:- The complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is marked and MO1 is also marked. Ext.A1 is the certificate issued by the RMO Dr. A. Krishnadas to the Complainant. MO1 is the alleged exploded Induction Cooker. 1^st Opposite Party produced witnesses and is examined as OPW1 and OPW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 are marked. Ext.B1 is the letter of authorisation and Ext.B2 is the hospital report. On perusal of complaint, the Complaint did not contain the date of purchase, bill number, serial number of unit and batch number of the product, no warranty card is also produced by the complainant. In the cross examination of complainant, the Complainant deposed that he had purchased the unit in 2011 September and he do not know the date of purchase. He stated that he did not get warranty card. He further stated that her mother-in-law was treated in ENT Department and not admitted in the Hospital. He further stated that he did not notice any defect in the functions of unit till the date of accident. In Ext.A1, the history of injury is noted as head injury with induction cooker. On perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that the injured was taken to Good Shepared Hospital, Vythiri on 15.12.2011. Time of admission is not noted in Ext.A1. Opposite Parties denied the incident. Doctor who treated the injured is not examined as a witness in this case. On perusal of version filed by 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties, there is no specific admission regarding the sale of alleged induction Hob by the Opposite Parties. 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties stated that since the complaint conspeciously silent about the date of purchase, product identification number, batch number etc, the Opposite Parties are not in a position to confirm as to the sale of the product in dispute by them. On perusal of Ext.B2, that the unit is still working even after the alleged incident. Opposite Parties dispute even the date of alleged incident. They states that they were informed by the Complainant regarding the incident on 14.12.2011. The alleged incident as per complaint is on 15.12.2011. The complainant did not produce any witness to prove the incident. Either the injured or any one else who witnessed the incident is not examined in this case. The Complainant is a hear say witness only. As per the evidence, it is seen that the MO1 is still working. There is no scientific evidence before the Forum as to the bursting of switch Hob of Induction Cooker. Opposite Parties categorically stated that there is no chance for such an explosion. The complainant stated that for the last 3 months of its purchase, the unit was working without any problem. Then the burden is upon the complainant to prove the bursting of switch Hob by taking out an Expert Commissioner to examine the Hob . That is not done in this case. The breakage of switch Hob can be by any other reason even by a fall or falling any object over the switch Hob etc. Therefore on perusal of the entire evidence, the Forum is of the opinion that the Complainant failed to prove the incident, injury, purchase of the particular unit from the Opposite Parties, etc by producing cogent and convincing evidence before the Forum. There exists utter doubts regarding all these aspects. There is no material before the Forum to attribute deficiency of service and unfair and trade practice from the part of Opposite parties in this case. So point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get the cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of July 2014.

Date of filing: 27.12.2011

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Bijoy. A.N. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. P. Ramesh. Service Manager.

OPW2. Deepak Babu Technician.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Certificate. dt:20.12.2011.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Letter of Authorisation. dt:20.06.2013.

B2. Job Card No.1941. dt:16.12.2011.