At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. T.S.P. MOOSATH
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. V.V. JOSE
For the Appellant: P. Rajmohan, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------------
S.S. Satheesachandran : President
First opposite party in CC.141/13 on the file of CDRF, Kannur ( for short District Forum) has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the price of an induction cooker purchased by the complainant with compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased an induction cooker by name ‘Easy Cooker’ from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the first opposite party. Immediately after purchase the cooker was found to be having lot of defects and it was produced before the service centre, 3rd opposite party. No proper service was carried out and defects continued and, further, opposite parties refused to replace the cooker or refund its price, was the case of the complainant to claim compensation from the opposite parties with refund of price of the cooker. Opposite parties 2 and 3 remained absent and only the first opposite party, manufacturer, challenged the claim of the complainant filing a version contending that the cooker sold to the complainant was free from manufacturing defects. The manufacturer has provided one year warranty and free service for a period of six years was also canvassed by it to resist the claim of the complainant.
3. The evidence in the case consisted of the testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 on his side. He was not cross-examined by the contesting first opposite party/appellant which also did not produce any evidence to substantiate the contentions in its version.
4. The lower Forum appreciating the materials produced uphold the claim of the complainant and directed the opposite parties to refund the price of cooker, Rs.3990/-, to him with compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by that order first opposite party, manufacturer, has preferred this appeal.
5. Notice was given to the complainant, and after service he remained absent. We heard the counsel for the appellant/first opposite party.
6. Learned counsel canvassed on the warranty conditions issued over the cooker to contend that it has no liability to refund its price and compensation awarded. We do not find any merit in the plea canvassed by the counsel as the fundamental question involved in the case was whether the cooker manufactured by the first opposite party suffered from manufacturing defects and whether such defects were incurable. The evidence of the case would show that complainant has approached the service centre of the 1st opposite party, manufacturer, for repairing the defective cooker but it defects still persisted. Certainly that induction cooker manufactured by opposite party and sold to the complainant suffered from serious manufacturing defect which were incurable, and, such being the case manufacturer should have replaced the defective cooker to the comp
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
lainant. That was not done. The order issued by the lower Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the cooker Rs.3990/- with compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant is unassailable. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their costs.