BRIJESH NEGI Vs. PARIPURNANAND RATURI

JUDGEMENT

(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.