- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 172 of 2009 and directing the opposite parties - appellants to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 31,500 within 30 days from the date of the order. The District Forum has also clarified in its order that the complainant would return the gas stove and the chimneys to the opposite parties after the said amount is deposited with the District Forum by the opposite parties and the said amount would be disbursed in favour of the complainant thereafter.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant - Sh. Paripurnanand Raturi had purchased two chimneys and one gas stove with built -in hob from Sh. Brijesh Negi, Propretior, Health Care Appliances, Dehradun - opposite party No. 1. These appliances were manufactured by Sunflame Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Faridabad -opposite party No. 2. After the installation of these appliances in the month of April 2009, the complainant could know that the gas stove with built -in hob was a defective one as the flame used to get extinguished automatically after a few minutes of ignition and, thus, cooking became a problem. On making a complaint to the seller, mechanic was sent, but he could not rectify the defect. The problem persisted continuously and the opposite parties could not provide any solution. The complainant asked the opposite parties to take back the appliances and to refund the amount paid by him, but they refused for the same. The opposite party No. 1 agreed only to replace the gas stove with another one, to which the complainant did not agree, because he had doubts in the quality of these products. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, which, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the same vide impugned order dated 21.9.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the appellants have not made any deficiency in service. According to him, as and when a complaint was received, the mechanic was sent to the complainant's house to rectify the problem. Even then, the appellants are ready to replace the gas stove with built -in hob with a new one if the complainant is not satisfied with the performance of the said product. But the complainant has not indicated any problem or defect in the chimneys. The District Forum, without considering these facts, has passed a most unjust order by directing the appellants to take back the gas stove as well as the chimneys, which have no defects and to refund a sum of Rs. 31,500 to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the complainant has not paid the full amount of the invoice and has paid only a sum of Rs. 25,500. Thus, the District Forum has also made an error by directing the appellants to pay the amount which the complainant has not paid.;