SUNITA SACHAR vs NANIKA INTERNATIONAL

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.

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. 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.

We do not feel inclined to accept this contention of the appellant as the appellant should have himself been careful in purchasing the hob and insisting the respondent to demonstrate its functioning and since the hob was found to be defective and not working properly, the only relief appellant could have been granted was the one which has been granted to him by the District Forum. We do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same in limine. The FDR if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal dismissed.