1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Microwave Oven of Samsung Company Model No. CE-103FF – 2S from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.5515 dt.11.12.2011 for Rs.13, 576/- and in the month of August, 2015 the Oven started sparking during use.  On complaint to Ops 1 & 2 they advised to register a complaint with OP.3 and a complaint was registered vides No.42033387358 on 24.10.2015.  It is submitted that as there was no response, the complainant requested the OP.1 either to repair the Oven or to replace with a new one.  Finally on 28.1.2016 the OP.2 received the Oven for repair and after 20 days stated that the Ceramic Paint is to be received from the Company and assured necessary repair but on 26.8.2016 stated that the repair is not possible.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he prayed the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the Oven with a new one and to pay Rs.51, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice neither preferred to file counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter through their A/R denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the purchase of Oven by the complainant from OP.1 on 11.12.2011 for a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.  It is contended that on 26.10.2016 the complainant lodged complaint and the OP replaced the power cord ware adjustment out of warranty and delivered the Oven on the same day vide Job Sheet No.4203450319.  It is further contended that the Micro Oven was not within its warranty period on the date of noticing the defect and the OP.2 has not replied anything to the complainant as alleged in the complaint petition.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on the part of them, the Ops 2 & 3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant only filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                            In this case the purchase of Microwave Oven Model No. CE 103 FF-2S vide Invoice No.5515 dt.11.12.2011 of Samsung Company from OP.1 by the complainant for Rs.13, 576/- is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that in the month of August, 2015, the Oven started sparking while in use and on complaint the technician of Samsung Company inspected the Oven and found the body is badly rust affected which needs repair.  As per advice of the technician, the complainant also lodged complaint with the Company on 24.10.2015 for repair of the Oven but to no avail.

5.                     The Ops 2 & 3 stated that the Oven purchased on 11.12.2011 was for one year warranty and the complainant lodged complaint on 26.10.2015 regarding non functioning of the Oven and the OP.2 has rectified the defect on the same day by replacing Power Cord ware adjustment vide Job Sheet No.4203450319 out of warranty and hence denied the allegation of the complainant that the Oven was completely rusted and unused.

6.                     The complainant has filed Xerox copy of warranty card which clearly shows that the Microwave Oven bears comprehensive warranty of 12 months and warranty for Ceramic Enamel Cavity is 60 months.  The complainant alleges that the Oven has completely got rusted and the technician of the Company stated that the Oven will not work unless repair is made for which the complainant has lodged complaint with OP.3 on 24.10.2015.  It is seen that the counter of the Ops is totally silent about the complaint No.42033387358 lodged by the complainant.  The complainant has also handed over the Oven to OP.2 on 28.1.2016 but on repeated visit of the complainant, the OP.2 on 26.8.2016 intimated that it was not possible on their part to repair the Oven.  The complainant has filed photographs of the Oven showing rust affected severely and according to him, from the rust affected area of the Oven, it was sparking.  The rust is clearly visible from the photographs.

7.                     From the above discussions, it was ascertained that during warranty period, the Ceramic Enamel damaged during warranty period and it was the duty of Ops 2 & 3 to replace Assembling LATCS of the Oven to make it functional but in spite of repeated approach of the complainant, they could not repair the Oven.  Through the warranty condition, the Ops undertake to provide after sale service for 60 months in respect of Ceramic Enamel Cavity but failed to provide service for which the Oven is of no use during warranty period and as such the complainant is suffering.  This inaction of the Company in our opinion, amounts to deficiency in service and as such the complainant is entitled to be compensated by the OP No.3.

8.                     While considering the award in favour of the complainant, we have carefully gone through the warranty condition of the Oven.  It is mentioned at Sl. No.9 of the warranty condition that “In the event of any unforeseen circumstances and spares not being available, the Company’s prevailing depreciation rules will be binding on the purchaser to accept a commercial solution in lieu of repairs.”  It is seen that no illustration regarding depreciation has been mentioned by the Company in the warranty papers in order to calculate the depreciation value of the article.  However, as ascertained, the complainant has used the Oven for 4 years. Hence considering all aspects of this case, we feel only the award of cost of the Oven i.e. Rs.13, 576/- without any interest thereon in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are also not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.500/- towards cost.  The above liabilities are on the OP.3 being the manufacturer of the product.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 being the manufacturer is directed to pay Rs.13, 576/- in lieu of defective Microwave Oven and to pay Rs.500/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.

(to dict.)