Date of Filing     :19-12-2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:30-04-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the 30^th  day of   April, 2015

          PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                             Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, Member.

C.C.No.123/2013

Valleti Venkata Sujatha,

W/o.V.Krishnamurthy,

4-278 A, Lakshmi Sai Nagar, Nawabpet,

Nellore.                                                                                                  ..… Complainant     

                                                                           Vs.

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 15-04-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri K. Umasankar,  advocate for the complainant and Sri Md. Rahimkhan,                                                      advocate for the opposite parties 1 and 2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

           The brief averments of the  complaint are as follows:

                    The complainant filed  C.C.No.39/2012  for deficiency of service   regarding the refrigerator purchased by her.  The complaint was dismissed with an observation that the complainant be ready to take delivery of the article and get it examined by a qualified mechanic and then filed this case if the problem still arises.  The functioning of the article became worse even after taking delivery of it.  The complainant got issued a legal notice on 21-09-2013 to the opposite parties.  The article is not functioning properly.  The opposite parties  supplied a defective article.  Hence, the complaint for replacing  of a new article  or for payment of Rs.17,000/- with costs, interest and compensation.

            2.         The brief  averments of the written version of the opposite parties are as follows:

            The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  The complainant is not a  consumer. There is no deficiency of service.  The refrigerator was functioning properly.  It is true that C.C.No.39/2012 was dismissed.  The warranty period was only  five months.  The complainant is troubling the respondents   after five years of usage.  The opposite parties attended to the complaint.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

            3.         Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”

4.         The complainant filed her affidavit and the affidavit of two mechanics as P.W.2 and P.W.3.  Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the complainant.  On behalf of the opposite party, an employee of the second opposite party filed his affidavit.  No documents were marked for the opposite parties.

5.  POINT.: Most of the facts are admitted.  The complainant contended that the article was not functioning properly and was creating problems.  The complainant  spoke to the contents of the complaint.  P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the mechanics, who deposed that the refrigerator was not functioning properly.  They deposed that  the cooling was not adequate.  These two mechanics issued certificates under Exs.A2 and A3.  The opposite party has not adduced any technical evidence.   R.W.1  is an employee of the company.  He deposed that the  replacement of the article after five years is improper.  However, this witness did not deal with the problem raised by the complainant.  Hence, there is no adequate  evidence to deny the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 for the mechanics, who deposed to the  defective condition of the article.  From the evidence, it is   clear that a defective article was supplied to the complainant, and even after the repairs, the  problem persisted.  A consumer dispute is therefore madeout ordering replacement at this juncture, is not proper.  The complainant sought an amount of Rs.17,000/-, being  the purchase money of the refrigerator.  The refrigerator was five years old.  Therefore,   We are of the view that an amount  of Rs.15,000/- can be granted towards the purchase money.  The complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint till realization alongwith costs of Rs.2,000/-.  The complainant sought a compensation of Rs.20,000/.- for supply of  a defective article.  Taking into consideration, the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that  Rs.8,000/- is adequate.  The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,000/-.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.

6.         IN THE RESULT,  the complaint is allowed,  directing the opposite parties 1           and 2, to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-  (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint till realization alongwith costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)   and  compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only), jointly and severally.

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  30^th  day of  April, 2015.

           MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

Copies to:

Date when free copy was issued: