III ADDL,DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

No.8,Sahakara Bhavan,Cunningham Road,Bangalore-560 052.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/2672/2008

Sri. K. Subramanya.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

M/s. Lorman Solutions.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Dr. Subhashini
2. H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA
3. N. SRIVATHSA KEDILAYA


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Sri. K. Subramanya.


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. M/s. Lorman Solutions.


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

ORDER Speaking through Sri H.M. Shivalingappa, Member

1. This Complaint is filed on 10.12.2008 u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Party in not repairing the goods namely Electrical Induction Cooker bought by the Complainant from the Opposite Party, nor replacing the Electrical Induction Cooker, nor refunding the amount paid for the said article, the Complainant has sought for a direction to the Opposite Party to replace the Cooker with a brand new piece or to refund the cost of the Cooker and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony and sufferance caused to him. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder; The Complainant has purchased an Electrical Induction Cooker from the Opposite Party M/s Lorman Solutions on 17.8.2008 for a sum of Rs.3,990/-.

The said Electrical Induction Cooker is covered under warranty for a period of 12 months from 17.8.2008. The Complainant has produced copies of the bill and the warranty card along with the Complaint at Annexures A & B. According to the Complainant, the said Cooker stopped working on 20.10.2008 and the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party on 28.10.2008. The staff of the Opposite Party came and after verification, took back the Cooker for repair on 31.10.2008 and returned it after repair which worked for about one week. The said Cooker again stopped working after one week. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party on 7.11.2008, the Company Representative visited and repaired the Cooker which working for only one day. It is the case of the Complainant that when he contacted the Opposite Party on 9.11.2008 over phone, one lady took the telephone and she was arrogant in her talk.
When the Complainant enquired the name and the telephone number of the Boss of the company, she refused to oblige and said “ do whatever you want”. Hence, the Cooker is still not working even after undergoing repairs for two to three times within a period of 3 months from the date of purchase. Ultimately, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dt.21.11.2008 to the Opposite Party calling upon to replace the Cooker with a brand new piece or refund the money with cost within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. According to the Complainant, the said legal notice was returned unserved as the Opposite Party refused to receive the same. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has approached this Forum alleging deficiency of service with a prayer for the reliefs stated above.


2. On admission of the Complaint, the Opposite Party was called upon to produce their Version of the case. Notice in that regard was sent through RPAD. However, the postal cover was returned un-served with a postal endorsement “addressee has left the address”. Later, steps were taken by furnishing a new address. Cause Title of the Complaint was amended and notice was sent to the new address. However, the notice sent through RPAD to the new address was returned un-served with postal endorsement “D/L”. Since notice could not be served on the new address furnished by the Complainant, the Complainant sought for service of notice on the Opposite Party by way of substituted service i.e., through paper publication. The same was permitted by this Forum and for having published the notice in “Hosa Digantha” a Kannada Daily Edition dt.5.3.2009, the Complainant produced the said newspaper dt.5.3.2009 along with a Bill bearing No.776 dt.3.3.2009 for a sum of Rs.507/- being the cost of publication incurred by the Complainant. Since the Opposite Party did not appear, nor represented, nor made available any Version, it was treated that there was no Version as such by the Opposite Party and the case proceeded against the Opposite Party exparte.


3. The case stood posted for evidence of the Complainant by way of affidavit and documents. Accordingly, the Complainant has made available his evidence by way of affidavit on 17.3.2009. At the end, this Forum heard on merits.


4. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision and they are; (i) Whether the Complainant has become successful in establishing the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party? (ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief against the Opposite Party in this case? (iii) What Order?


5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder: i) Yes ii) Yes iii) As shown in the operative portion of the Order here below. 6. We shall substantiate our findings on the following:


R E A S O N S

POINT NO.1: It is seen from the evidence of the Complainant filed by way of affidavit and also copies of the receipt and warranty card produced along with the Complaint that the Complainant has purchased one Electrical Induction Cooker from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.3,990/- under receipt no.376 dt.17.8.2008 and that goods in question is covered under warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase as can be seen from the recitals found on the receipt at Annexure-A, as also Warranty Card at Annexure-B. According to the Complainant, the Cooker in question stopped working on 20.10.2008. On being complained to the Opposite Party, the representative of the Opposite Party came and after verification, took back the Cooker for repair on 31.10.2008 and returned it after repair which worked for about one week. Again on 7.11.2008 on being complained, the Company Representative visited and repaired the Cooker. But it worked only for one day.

Thereafter, when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party over phone on 9.11.2008, one lady who attended the phone was arrogant in her talks and when the Complainant enquired about the name and the telephone number of the Boss of the Company, she refused to oblige and told “ do whatever you want”. Under these circumstances, the Cooker in question is still not working. Therefore, on account of the deficiency of service by the Opposite Party, the Complainant has been deprived of the use of the said Cooker in question and has been put to mental agony and sufferance. Ultimately, a legal notice dt.21.11.2008 was got issued calling upon the Opposite Party to replace the goods in question with a brand new piece or, refund the money along with compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for having deprived him of the use of the Cooker and put the Complainant to mental agony and sufferance. From a perusal of the copy of postal endorsement, it is seen that the said notice was returned with an endorsement “no such person in this address”. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party is doing their business in the new address now furnished, but, the Opposite Party is intentionally avoiding service of notice. It is seen that inspite of notice to the Opposite Party by paper publication in “Hosa Digantha” a Kannada Daily dt.5.3.2009 mentioning the date of hearing as 7.3.2009 for appearance and Version of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party did not turn up, nor was represented nor has made available their Version.

All these circumstances, do probabilise the plea of the Complainant that the Opposite Party is intentionally avoiding his liability. Further, the assertion of the Complainant on oath that the Cooker in question is not working properly and went out of order within a period of 3 months from the date of purchase, has remained unchallenged. It is the fact that inspite of the Complaint to the Opposite Party over phone on 9.11.2008 to effect repairs, the Opposite Party did not turn up. On the other hand, the reply of the staff of the Opposite Party was arrogant. The evidence produced by way of affidavit also remained un-countered. The recitals found on the copies of the receipt as well as Warranty Card produced at Annexures-A & B reveal that the Cooker is covered under Warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase. The following are the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the said Warranty Card. TERMS

1. The Warranty is valid only if this card is duly signed and stamped by our dealer and is produced along with original customer’s copy of the purchase bill.


2. Warranty period starts from the date of purchase from our Authorized Dealers only.


3. The Gas stove will be repaired free of charge during the 12 months period only. Replacement of parts including knobs, gas jets subject to normal wear and tear is NOT covered by this Warranty since they need regular replacement in normal course of use.


4. The gas stove must be used with all normal care and maintenance and in accordance with instructions for use recommended by us. At no time, the stove is to be repaired or serviced by any person not authorized by our Company.


5. The gas stove must not be shifted from place to place frequently and/or handled roughly.



6. The decision of the Company is final in all cases of complaints or disputes. It appears the repairs complained by the Complainant in respect of the goods in question is well within the period of warranty. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the attitude of the Opposite Party in remaining absent inspite of paper publication, we are of the view that the Complainant has established that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party in not rendering service of repair of the Electrical Induction Cooker in question. Accordingly, this point is answered.


7. POINT NOS.2 & 3: The Complainant has not come up with the plea of any manufacturing defect and he has not made the Manufacturer as a party to this Proceeding. His grievance is only as against the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party is not attending to the repairs of the Cooker. In the circumstances, the Opposite Party is liable to effect repairs by removing the defects in goods. Further, for no fault of the Complaint, he has been forced to approach this Forum seeking redressal against the Opposite Party. Therefore, for mental agony, sufferance and the cost of this litigation incurred by the Complainant including paper publication, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as compensation and cost of this litigation.

(b): In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Since the Complainant has established the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Opposite Party is directed to remove the defect/defects in the Electrical Induction Cooker touching the subject matter of this case free of cost within a period of 30 days from the date of this Order. If for any reason, the Cooker touching the subject matter cannot be repaired, the Opposite Party shall refund a sum of Rs.3,990/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred and ninety) to the Complainant being the cost of the Cooker.


The Opposite Party shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the Complainant by way of cost and compensation within the period of 30 days from the date of this Order.