IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM. DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2010. Present: Sri.K. Vijayakumaran, President. Adv. Ravi Susha, Member. R. Vijayakumar, Member. C.C.NO.121/2009 SHAILSA, GREEN LAND, KOOTTIKKADA P.O, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM. [K.P.JABBAR, ADV., KOLLAM] .. COMPLAINANT V/S 1. THE MANAGER, MATS INDIA ENTERPRISES 28/1000, K.P. VALLAN ROAD, MULLAKKAL LANE, KADAVANTHARA P.O, KOLLAM. 2. PROPRIETOR, VALSA AGENCIES, NEAR K.S.E.B, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. .. OPPOSITE PARTIES O R D E R R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting compensation Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.2,000/- for mental agony sustained by the complainant and Rs.1000/- as cost. The complainant’s case is that 1 year guaranteed and 5 year warranted Electro tech the Multi function Induction Cooker which was purchased from II opp.party, damaged after 4 months from the date of purchase. The opp.parties were reluctant to cure the defects and had not acted as offered. The complainant had purchased the Cooker from the exhibition Stall, Kollam attracted by the advertisement that the Cooker will be less expensive than using gas and will be more convenient to use. When the defect was found the complainant contacted the II opp.party over telephone but the complaint was not considered by them. When the II opp.party conducted the next Exhibition at Kollam, the complainant went there with the damaged Cooker and demanded for rectification. Opp.party rediculed him. The complainant sent Advocate notices on dates 16-9-08 and 24-11-08 but it was not replied. The complainant had given the newly purchased cooker as a presentation to her newly married daughter. The complainant and his daughter had sustained mental agony because of the damage in the Cooker. The I opp.party is the manufacturer of the Cooker I and II opp.party are liable to compensate for deficiency in service from their part. Hence the complaint. Eventhough sufficient opportunities were given the opp.parties remained absent. Hence set Exparte. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined.Exts.P1 to P7 marked. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party? 2. Compensation and cost. Pints I and II As the opp.parties remained absent we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. We have perused the complaint, affidavit and documents. Ext.P1 shows that the price of the Cooker was Rs.3,950/- after deducting discount Rs.1000/-. Ext.P2 shows that all induction cookers from Electrotech are guaranteed for 1 year and warranted for 5 years from the date of purchase against manufacturing defects. On a detailed verification of documents we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties. The points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to pay compensation Rs.6000/- and cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2010. INDEX List of witnesses for the complainant PW1-Shailsa List of documents for the complainant Ext.P1-Copy of Order Form Ext.P2-Guarantee Card. Ext.P3-Copy of Note. Ext.P4-Copy of II Notice 24-11-09. Ext.P5-Copy of Postal Receipt. Ext.P6- Copy of Postal Receipt. Ext.P7-Acknowledgemnt Card. | 
