IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 14^th day of May, 2014.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

C.C.No.100/2013 (Filed on 22.07.2013)

Between:

Biju. P. Cherian,

Pallatharayil,

Keezhukara,

Kozhencherry,

Pin – 689 641.

(By Adv. Jagan Mathew)                                ….          Complainant

And:

1. Alexo Agencies,

Branch Poyanil Plaza,

Kozhencherry,

Pin – 689 641.

(By Adv. Joseph. K)

1. Whirlpool of India Ltd.,

Plot No.40, Sector – 40,

Gurgaon – 12202.

(By Adv. T. Harikrishnan)                                     …..      Opposite parties

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                2. Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Whirlpool Refrigerator with its accessories like the stabilizer, plastic stand etc. by paying Rs.9,901/- on 06.10.2010 from the 2^nd opposite party with 5 year warranty.  After 30 days from the date of purchase the said fridge showed complaints, which was intimated to the 1^st opposite party and they have rectified the complaints temporarily.  After 2 months from the 1^st repairs the said fridge again showed complaints which was intimated to the 1^st opposite party who repaired the fridge.  After 1 month, thereafter, the said fridge again showed complaints and stopped its working completely.  But they have not rectified the defects of the fridge so far in spite of the complainant’s numerous complaints to the opposite parties. The non rectification of the complaints of the fridge by the opposite parties within its warranty period is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties for delivering a new fridge and compensation.

                3. The 1^st opposite party filed their version with the following contentions:  According to the 1^st opposite party, they are only one of the dealers of the 2^nd opposite party and after sale service is being done by the service engineers of the 2^nd opposite party directly.  1^st opposite party admitted the sale of the fridge to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party that the refrigerator is not functioning properly.  The said complaint was forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party understands that the said complaint was duly rectified by the 2^nd opposite party.  Thereafter the complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party stating that the fridge is having some trouble.  The said complaint was also duly forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party who rectified the same.  Thereafter the complainant had not approached the 1^st opposite party and the complainant was dealing with the 2^nd opposite party directly.  To the knowledge of the 1^st opposite party, compressor alone has warranty for 5 years.  All other parts and components have warranty for one year only.  1^st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the fridge in question.  1^st opposite party has no liability what so ever under the transaction.  With the above contentions, 1^st opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                4. The version of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:  They admitted the sale of the refrigerator which is manufactured by them.  The allegation of manufacturing defect is totally false and the said product was totally free from any sort of manufacturing defect.  As per the terms and conditions of warranty, 5 year warranty is given to the compressor only and the other components have warranty for one year only.  The said fact was suppressed by the complainant. The first complaint of the complainant’s fridge dated 07.04.2011 was of gas leakage and it was rectified free of cost.  The leakage of gas is not a manufacturing defect, which may be due to mishandling.  The second complaint dated 27.03.2012 was of a very minor nature which was also rectified at the complainant’s residence itself.  The third complaint dated 23.07.2012 (complaint No.0412012513) was not of the refrigerator but was of the washing machine used by the complainant.  The last complaint dated 28.12.2012 was of rust to certain body parts which is not a manufacturing defect and the compressor and other mechanical parts are working perfectly.  This complaint is purely experimental and vexatious in nature.  The complainant is not entitled to make an unlawful gain for a product which is in working condition and after the expiry of warranty and the alleged complaints are not manufacturing defects.  Thus the 2^nd opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as there is no deficiency in service from their part.

                5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, PW2, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 and C1.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                7. The Point:-  The allegations of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party on 06.10.2010 with 5 years warranty.  The complaints of the refrigerator was rectified by the opposite parties at the initial stage and thereafter they are not ready for rectifying the defects.  According to the complainant, the defect of the refrigerator is manufacturing defect which are occurred within the warranty period and hence opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects.  The non-rectification of the defects by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant. 

                8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant and one witness filed a proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination along with 7 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the witness was examined as PW2 and the documents produced by the complainant is marked as Exts.A1 to A7.  Ext.A1 is the bill dated 06.10.2010 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the refrigerator.  Ext.A2 is the warranty card of the fridge.  Ext.A3 is the warranty card of the stabilizer purchased by the complainant along with the fridge.  Ext.A4 and A4(a) are the photographs of the refrigerator.  Ext.A5 is the expenditure certificate dated 05.02.2013 issued from Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the complainant’s son showing that his son requires immediate treatment.  Ext.A6 is the case summary record dated 21.12.2005 issued from Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram showing the diseases of the complainant’s son.  Ext.A7 is the MRI report dated 10.12.2005 issued from Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology showing the scanning results of the complainant’s son.

                9. On the other hand, the contention of opposite parties can be summarized as follows:  According to them, the fridge was sold on 06.10.2010 and all the complaints reported within its warranty period and thereafter was properly rectified free of cost and there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  Further, warranty for 5 years is given only for the compressor and the other parts are given warranty for one year only.  Since the fridge was purchased 3 years before and no complaints for the compressor was seen or reported so far.  In the circumstances, opposite parties are not liable to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service from their part and hence they argued for the dismissal of the complaint.

                10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, they have cross-examined the complainant and there is no oral or documentary evidence from their part.

                11. Apart from the above evidences, an expert commissioner appointed by this Forum inspected the refrigerator and filed a report which is marked as Ext.C1 with the consent of both parties.

                12. On the basis of the available materials on record it is found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the sale and purchase of the refrigerator and the repairs of the refrigerator without charging any bills till the expiry of the warranty period and thereafter as gesture of goodwill.  The allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties are not prepared to repair the refrigerator free of cost for the complaints occurred subsequently.  But the contention of the opposite parties is that the subsequent complaints are occurred after the expiry of the warranty which is reported on 28.12.2012 whereas the refrigerator was purchased on 06.10.2010.  The said complaint of the refrigerator is not a manufacturing defect, but it was of rust to the body parts which is not covered under warranty as the warranty was already expired on 05.10.2011.  It is an admitted fact that the refrigerator was purchased on 06.10.2010 and the normal warranty is for one year and the warranty for the compressor is for 5 years.  In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint reported on 28.12.2012 is covered under warranty.  At the same time, Ext.C1 commissioner’s report clearly shows that the complaints of the refrigerator noticed by the expert commissioner are not manufacturing defects and there is no complaint to the compressor of the refrigerator.  Further, Ext.C1 commissioner’s report is also not opposed either by the complainant or by the opposite parties.  So Ext.C1 commissioner’s report can be accepted as a conclusive evidence which cuts the root of the allegations of the complainant and hence we find that there is no merits in this case.  Further the complainant failed to prove his case.  Therefore, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed.

                13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14^th day of May, 2014.

                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                                                Jacob Stephen,        

                                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)             :      (Sd/-)

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Biju. P. Cherian

PW2  :  Dileep Kumar. T

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1    :  Bill dated 06.10.2010 issued by the 1^st opposite party in the   

           name of the complainant. 

A2    :  Warranty card of the fridge. 

A3    :  Warranty card of the stabilizer. 

A4 & A4(a) :  Photographs of the refrigerator. 

A5   :  Expenditure certificate dated 05.02.2013 issued from Regional

          Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the 

          complainant’s son. 

A6    :  Case summary record dated 21.12.2005 issued from Regional 

           Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. 

A7    :  MRI report dated 10.12.2005 issued from Sree Chitra Tirunal 

           Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  T.A. Philip

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Court Exhibits:

C1  :  Commissioner’s Report 

                                                                                    (By Order)

                                                                                         (Sd/-)

                                                                      Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Biju. P. Cherian, Pallatharayil, Keezhukara,

                    Kozhencherry, Pin – 689 641.

1. Alexo Agencies, Branch Poyanil Plaza,

            Kozhencherry, Pin – 689 641.

1. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Plot No.40, Sector – 40,

            Gurgaon – 12202.

       (4) The Stock File.