PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                               CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 168/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sri. Pramod Kumar Padhee,

S/O-Late Chandra Sekhar Padhee,

At-Nayapara, PO-Golebazar

Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha.                                          

Mob No. 9437209631                                                   ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-  

1. M/s Ranjit Stores,

At/PO- Golebazar, Near Durga Mandir,

Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha

Cont. No. 9437056364.

2. M/S Stove Kraft Limited,

81/1, Hrohalli Industrial Area,

Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, Bangalore Rural

(Karnataka)-562112,India, Ph No. 080-26985800

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Sri. Ranjit Singh Chawla, Proprietor
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :-Ex-parte

Date of Filing:09.10.2023,Date of Hearing :11.03.2024,Date of Judgement : 22.04.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 16.04.2023 the Complainant purchased one Pigeon Induction Cooktop from O.P. No.1 for Rs. 1500/- and the O.P. No.1 issued a warranty card dated 16.04.2023 for one year. When the Complainant found defect in product contacted the service centre a Gugly Enterprises but no response came. Neither repair nor replacement made. Being aggrieved complaint was filed.
2. The O.P. No.1 in reply submitted that Gugly Enterprises is the service provider of the manufacturer. The retailer submitted that in case the service provider not provided service with consultation with manufacturer the retailer can replace the product.
3. The O.P. no.2 manufacturer has been set ex-parte.
4. The Complainant filed the warranty card issued by O.P. No.1 dated 16.04.2023. Within the warranty period of one year when the defect arose in the product the service provider was contacted but no any responde come out. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to allot service engagement to sincere service centre but no service was provided which amounts to deficiency on the part of O.P. No.2. The O.P. no.1 in reply submitted that in case the O.P. No.2 gives advise to replace then he is ready to replace the product. As a retailer the O.P. no.1 has no liability and service provider has not been made party. The entire responsibility goes to the manufacturer. ‘

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case following order is passes:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed against O.P. No.2 manufacturer exparte and dismissed on contest against O.P. No.1. The O.P. no.2 is directed to replace the product with same specification within one month of this order. In case of non-replacement the O.P. no.2 will be liable to refund Rs. 1500/- with 9% interest P.A. w.e.f. 16.04.2023 till realisation. The O.P. no.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22^nd day of April, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.