CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.264/11
Wednesday the 4th day of January, 2012
Petitioner : Leelamani,
Aswathy,
Panayakazhippu,
Nagampadom, Kottayam.
( Adv.Zakhir Huzzan)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Manager,
Systems Infotech,
Malikayil Buildings,
Opp.Mount Carmel, Kottayam.
2) The Manager(H.R)
Samsung India Pvt.Ltd.,
No.24, Near Vanheusen Showroom,
Opposite Kalyani Hospital,
Rajasekaran Street, Mylapore,
Chennai-600004.
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 29/09/11, is as follows.
Petitioner purchased a microwave oven from 1st opposite party, manufactured by 2nd opposite party. The oven functioned only for about 4 years. By the end of April oven was not warming. Petitioner intimated the defects to the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party inspected the oven and intimated that some parts of the oven get damaged and it can be rectified by replacing those parts. On 31/5/11 petitioner took the oven to the 1st opposite party for curing the defect. 1st opposite party assured that defects will be cured and oven will be delivered within two weeks. Complainant approached the 1st opposite party for taking delivery, as assured. But opposite party has not delivered the article stating that some of the parts are not replaced. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service so, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to deliver the microwave oven after curing the defect. Petitioner claims compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceedings.
Notice of opposite parties served. Opposite parties has not entered appearance and filed any version. So opposite parties are set expartee.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by petitioner and Ext.A1 document on the side of the petitioner.
Point No.1
Case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not delivered the microwave oven entrusted to the 1st opposite party for repair. 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the microwave oven. In our view act of the opposite party in non-delivery of microwave oven, after curing the defect, amounts to deficiency in service. In the lack of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.
In the result, opposite parties are ordered to deliver the microwave oven to petitioner after curing the defects. If not possible opposite party is liable to refund Rs 15,000/-, cost of the microwave oven, to the petitioner. Without saying what had happened caused much hardships and mental sufferings to the petitioner. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation. Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation cost.
Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.
If the order is not complied petitioner is entitled to 9% interest for the award amount from date of filing of the petition till realisation
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of January, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of service request.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
