<br /> 3. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the disputed mixie in the name and style "Philips India Electronics Private Limited" hereinafter referred to as the company. After manufacturing the goods they are duly tested, verified and checked through stringent quality checking and inspection process. The complaint is filed before the Forum with false allegations and concoted stories. 2nd opposite party is not having any knowledge or information in respect of the non-functioning of the said mixie in question. Eventhough as per the statement made by the complainant, whenever the said mixie was not functioning within the warranty period, the 2nd opposite party either replaced the system or repaired it from time to time, whenever there was a complaint was lodged by the complainant. The problem was analyzed by the skilled technicians and the same was accordingly rectified. The said mixie was delivered in perfect working condition to the complainant. There is an authorised service centre of the 2nd opposite party, provides prompt services to the complaints of the customers. When the mixie was before the authorised service centre, they repaired the same without delay. The compliant was due to overload, the overload switch was dropped and this was explained to the petitioner also. There was a defect in motor and defective motor was replaced in the very next day with a brand new one and the mixie was then working without any problem. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as falsely claimed and also does not deserve any replacement or reimbursement of the price of the mixie or any other such cost or similar expenses. So the complaint may be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced from the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 6. The POINT :- On 7.11.2006, the Complainant purchased a mixie from the Ist opposite party's shop for Rs.2,200/- . Ext.P1 is the bill for the same. At the time of purchasing the mixie, the Ist opposite party issued a guarantee card for two years authorised by the 2nd opposite party which is Ext.P2. The mixie became non-functioning after two weeks. It was repaired by the 2nd opposite party's authorised service persons through the Ist opposite party twice. Ext.P3 is the service receipt issued by the Ist opposite party. Signature of the Service Engineer is also affixed on the same. Again the mixie became defective and now the same is kept at opposite party's shop. As per the written version of 2nd opposite party, they have admitted that the mixie was supplied by them. But in the bill as well as in the guarantee card, the name of the complainant is not written. It means that they are not sure that the mixie is purchased by PW1. Anyway they are only the authorised agent of 2nd opposite party and not the responsible persons for the defect caused to the mixie. 2nd opposite party is responsible for the same. Ist opposite party received a small amount commission by the sale of the mixie. They have serviced the same at the time when PW1 asked for the same. The 2nd opposite party is the company who manufactured the same. They were not aware of the complaint of the mixie. The service person of the 2nd opposite party, promptly serviced the mixie twice. Moreover the mixie is not having any defect, when voltage varies, or overload comes the overload drip switch fitted will automatically switch off. That is caused due to the unawareness of PW1 about the working of the mixie. So the mixie was repaired twice in the authroised service centre of the 2nd opposite party on 13.11.2006 and on 10.02.2007. Again they are ready to repair the same without any cost. It means that the mixie is having some trouble even the motor was changed by the 2nd opposite party. As per PW1, it is not working now. The mixie became out of order several times. So there is no reason to disbelieve PW1. The mixie is supplied by the Ist opposite party but the name of PW1 is not written in the bill as well as in the guarantee card. It is the duty of the Ist opposite party to write the same. Because Exts.P1 to P3 are supplied by the Ist opposite party only. Now also the mixie is at the shop of the Ist opposite party. So, we think that there is gross deficiency in the part of the Ist opposite party for not replacing the mixie after legal notice is issued. PW1 is entitled to get a fresh mixie in the place of the defective mixie. He is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs.500/-for the deficiency in service and also the cost of the petition.<br /> <br /> As a result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace a fresh mixie to the complainant after taking the defective mixie or pay Rs.2,200/- to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and <br /> <br /> Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are severally and jointly liable for the same.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of August, 2008<br /> <br />