SUNITA SACHAR Vs. NANIKA INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the District Forum whereby the respondent company was ordered to take back the defective piece known as hob used in the Hood Type Chimney of a modular kitchen and refund the money charged from the appellant, the appellant has preferred this appeal as according to him, hob can be removed only dismantling the entire kitchen.

(2.) Grievance of the appellant is that the hob purchased from the respondent was so defective that the entire working of the chimney created lot of problems inasmuch as the burners are making continuous noise after ignition and the whistling sound of the burners creates effect sufficient to ignite headache. The burners are not heating the pan evenly and further the heating effect of the burners is much slow as compared to the other burners of ordinary gas stove.

(3.) It is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that though the impugned order has been passed in his favour by allowing the complaint but the fact remains that the respondent did not demonstrate the working of the hob and if the hob is removed the whole modular kitchen would be dismantled causing loss of about Rs.2 lacs and, therefore, he be adequately compensated.