CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2013.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 22/08/2012
CC /161/2012
T.C. Mathew,
S/o. T.J. Chacko, - Complainant
Thazhathuveettil, Anugraha (H),
Koottupatha, Chandranagar P.O,
Palakkad - 7
(Party in person)
Vs
The Proprietor,
Rasoi, Shop No. 10, Mangalam Towers,
Opp. Town Bus stand, Palakkad – 678 014 - Opposite party
(By Adv. P. Anil)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Case of the complaint is as follows :-
The complainant has pruchased a Four burner gas Stove+ Chimney (Karin 90 + watson 70) on 9th May 2011 invoice No. 92 from the opposite party. The actual price of the stove and chimney is Rs. 32,980/-. The complainant got the said article for an amount of Rs. 18,990/- as their special offer. At the time of purchase the opposite party offered a guarrantee of 2 years. Even before completing the house construction the complainant purchased the stove by attracting the advertisement about the offer price. After some months, when the kitchen work was completed, the technicians from the opposite party fitted and demonstrated the same. On 12/07/2012 in the morning the stove burned with a loud voice at the time of cooking rice. The complainant seriously burned and admitted in the hospital. He was discharged on 14th July. On 16th July 2012 the complainant informed the incident to the Indane gas and the technicians came and checked the cylinder. On verification the complainant was informed by them that the proplem is not with the cylinder but the leakage of the stove. On 17th July the complainant informed the opposite party about the same and written his name, address with phone number in the complaint register. The opposite party assured that they will do needful within 2 days. But the opposite party did not keep the promise. The complainant made several attempt to get the service of opposite party. On 30/07/2012 the complainant sent a registered letter demanding their service. They received the letter but no action was taken.
During the 1st usage of the stove itself the accident occurred. The complainant was in rest for one month due to the injury caused by him. The above said incident caused mental agony and physical hardships to the complainant and he is entitled to get compensation.
So the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to replace the defective stove with a new one and pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compenstation for mental agony and physical hardship.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the contentions put forward by the complainant. Opposite party admits that the complainant has purchased a gas stove from the opposite party. But opposite party denies that the stove is having two years warranty. The manufacturing company of the stove, Sleek, has given 1 year warranty to the stove. It is not true to say that the stove was fitted and demonstrated by the technicians of the oppostie party. Opposite party admits that they have received the registered letter sent by the complainant. After receiving the notice the opposite party tried to get an opportunity to inspect the stove. But the complainant demanded the huge amount as compenstation. The complaiant is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The manufacturing company of the stove is not a party in this case.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext. A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. On the side of opposite party Ext. B1 marked as subject to proof. Complainant and opposite party cross examined as PW1 and DW1 respectively.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so what is the relief and cost the complainant entitled to ?
Issues 1&2
Complaint is filed for getting compensation from the opposite party for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by them. The complainant purchased a four burner gas stove + chimney ( Karin 90 +watson 70 sleek) on 09/05/2011 for an amount of Rs. 18,990/- as the offer price , it is evident from Ext. A1 document. Before the completion of the work of the complainant's house itself it was purchased only by attracting the offer price. At the time of purchase the opposite party offered a guarrantee of 2 years. It is not supported by any documents.
On 12/07/2012 the complainant used the stove for its 1st time the stove burned with a loud voice the complainant caused severe injuries. There is no evidence to show that the alleged accident was within warranty period. Complainant is of the opinion that warranty was not given by the opposite party. Any how there is no document before the forum to show that the said equipment is having 2 years warranty. Hence the claim for replacement of the stove can't be considered. After the accident on 30/07/2012 the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party requesting them to check the stove and do the needful actions. Ext. A2 shows the same. Eventhogh the opposite party received the letter, no action was taken. In the complaint itself the complainant stated that they have written the name and address in the complaint register of the opposite party. Complainant filed application to produce the complaint register. Instead of producing the said complaint register opposite party filed an affidavit stating no such document is in their custody. At the same time in the cross examination DW1 deposed that “ ഓഫീ സീ ലു ള്ള day bookþ ല് ആണ് പരാ തി യുണ്ട് ങ്കി ല് പേരും അഡ്ഡ്രസ്സൂം എഴുതാ റു ള്ള ത് . '' But it is not produced. Ext. A5 issued by ICEE PEE GAS AGENCY shows the stove is not in a using condition due to the leakage.
The complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the defect of the stove and also sent registered letter for the same. But opposite party did not response to the letter and also not done any action to solve the grievance of the complainant.
From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees Three thosand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of January, 2013
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– The purchasing bill of the stove dtd. 9/05/2011 (original).
Ext. A2- Copy of the complaint letter to the opposite party.
Ext. A3- Discharge summary from the hopital.
Ext A4- Treatment and medicine bills from the hospital.
Ext. A5- Letter of ICEEPEE Gas Agency dtd. 22/11/2012.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext. B1 – Copy of the warranty card of the sleek company.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – T.C. Mathew.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 – Ramesh Kumar. A
Cost allowed
Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only )allowed as cost of the proceedings.
