IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member

C C No. 161/2016

Tuesday, the 28^th day of February, 2017

Petitioner                                  :         Jeffin Babice,

                                                          S/o. Babiee K. Thomas,

                                                          Vellappallil, Athirampuzha,

                                                          Kottayam – 686 562.

                                                          (Adv. P.K. Vinodkumar)

                                                                   Vs.                                          

Opposite Parties                       :   1)   Jaquar & Company Private Ltd,

                                                          Rep. by Managing Director,

                                                          306 Udyog Vihar Phase III,

                                                          Gurgaon – 122 016.

                                                 2)      Cochin Saniwares,

                                                          Rep. by Proprietor,

                                                          Near St. Thomas College,

                                                          Arunapuram, Pala,

                                                          Kottayam – 686 574.

O  R  D  E  R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

          The case of the complainant filed on 13/05/2016 is as follows.

          The complainant on 19/04/2014 purchased three closets vide model                      No.0314 – 2 numbers and 0110 model – 1 number manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the second opposite party.  According to the complainant, in March 2015 it is seen that there was some crack on one closet vide model no. 0314 and lack of sufficient water in the closet for fleshing vide model No.0110.  Then it was intimated to the 2^nd opposite party and after inspecting in three times by the Technicians of 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party assured that they will replace the faulty closets.  But there was no response.  So he made a complaint on 31/07/2015 and 20/10/2015 to the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties has not cared to redress his grievances.  According to the complainant, the defect of the closets is due to the manufacturing defect and the said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

          Notice to the opposite party 1 was returned with an endorsement as ‘left’.  So it is considered as deemed service.

          Even after accepting the notice, 2^nd opposite party has not cared to appear or file version.

Points for considerations are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?

          Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 document.

Point No.1

          The case of the complainant is that the closets manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, purchased from the 2^nd opposite party become defective within short period and opposite parties has not replace the same as assured.  According to the complainant, the defect of the closet is due to manufacturing defect.  Complainant produced warranty certificate issued by the 1^st opposite party and the same is marked as Ext.A1.   In Ext.A1, the seal of the 2^nd opposite party is affixed.  From Ext.A1, it can be understood that the defect is within warranty period.  In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1.  In our view, the defect of a newly purchased closets within short period is due to an inferior quality of the product and the act of opposite parties delivering an inferior quality of closets amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the said act of opposite parties, complaint had suffered much mental pain and sufferings.  So he is to be compensated.  Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

          In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed. 

          In the result,

1. Opposite parties are Ordered to replace the complainant’s defective closets with a brand new one.

                 ‘OR’

Opposite parties are Ordered to refund the price of the closets.

2. Opposite parties are Ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

          The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of Order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2017.

          Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President             Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member      Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member          Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of petitioner

Ext.A1  : Warranty certificate issued by 2^nd opposite party on behalf of 1^st op.

Documents of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                               Senior Superintendent