O R D E R

Sri. George Baby (President):

                    This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for getting the reliefs from the opposite parties.

                    2. The complainant’s case in brief as follows:  That the complainant had purchased a refrigerator from the 1^st opposite party’s shop on 23/10/2015 by paying Rs. 17,201/-.  The said refrigerator was manufactured by the company named Whirlpool.  At the time of its purchase the 1^st opposite party made to believe the complainant that the said fridge has warranty of 10 years.  The said refrigerator became rusted and the said matter properly informed to the 1^st opposite party and there after the 1^st opposite party had replaced the same with a new one.  The said refrigerator’s paint peeled off and also become rusted.  This matter was also informed to the 1^st opposite party and the complainant demanded to replace the refrigerator or to return it price.  But the 1^st opposite party has not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The complainant stated that the said act of the opposite party is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant further contended that the 1^st opposite party had sold the defective and the old refrigerator to her.  Hence this complaint.

                   3.  This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party.  The opposite party, seller, appeared before this forum and filed his version and his main contention are as follows:

                   4. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  This complaint is filed on experimental basis.  The opposite party is a leading retailer of home appliances.  The 1^st opposite party admitted the purchase of the refrigerator.  But it is denied that the said refrigerator had 10 year warranty.  It is also denied that this opposite party had replaced the refrigerator as stated by the complainant.  The opposite party denied the fact that the complainant had properly informed the defects of the refrigerator to him.  The manufacturer of the refrigerator has not been included as a party to the complaint.  Hence the opposite party pray for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                   5.  Subsequently the complainant had filed impleading petition            as I.A.22/2019 for impleading the manufacturer as the additional 2^nd opposite party.  The additional 2^nd opposite party properly acknowledged the notice issued from this Forum but they did not come forward to contest the complaint then they declared ex-parte on 15/05/2019.

                   6.  We peruse the complaint, version and the records before us and we framed the following issued:-

          1. Whether the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service

              as alleged by the complainant?

          2. Regarding reliefs and cost?  

                   7.  The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A3.  Ext. A1 is the bill dated: 28/10/2015 issued by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext. A2 is the warranty card.  Ext. A3 is the replacement advice dated: 17/10/2016.  The complainant has examined as PW1 who filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and the same is more or less in tune with his complaint.  No oral evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties.  After the Closure of evidence we heard both parties. 

                   8.  Point No1:- The complainant’s case is that she had purchased a whirl pool refrigerator from the 1^st opposite party’s shop on 23/10/2015 on payment of Rs. 17,201/-.  At the time of its purchase the 1^st opposite party had made to believe the complainant that the particular refrigerator has the warranty of 10 years.  When the refrigerator started to develop rust, then immediately the complainant had informed the matter to the 1^st opposite party and accordingly 1^st opposite party had replaced the defective refrigerator on 17/10/2016 with another one.  The said Refrigerator also became defective as its paint was peeled off and also developed the rust on its body parts.  This matter has intimated by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party but he has not taken any step to cure the defects of the refrigerator.  That the complainant further contended that the 1^st opposite party had sold the old refrigerator to her.  Except the purchase, the 1^st opposite party denied all the allegations in the complaint.  The 1^st opposite party stated that they provide the warranty only for the compressor for 10 years.  The other parts covering the warranty of 1 year only.  The 1^st opposite party also denied the fact of replacement of the refrigerator on 17/10/2016.  In this context we have gone through Ext. A3 document and from that document it is crystal clear that the complainant’s refrigerator was replaced by the 1^st opposite party on 17/10/2016.  The complainant specific case is that the replaced refrigerator also became defective and requested the 1^st opposite party to replace the same or to return its price.  Nothing has been brought out in evidence to disprove the said contention of the complainant.  When we go through Ext. A3 document it is seen that the replaced refrigerator has only the price of Rs. 12,446/-.  While at the same time Ext. A1 revealed that the complainant had purchased the new refrigerator on 23/10/2015 by paying Rs. 17,201/-  The learned council appearing for the complainant submitted that the opposite party had not mentioned anywhere in the version or at the time of evidence for what reason they had replaced refrigerator of a meager value  when compared with the first one purchased on 23/10/2015 and according to the complainant it is clear act of unfair trade practice of the 1^st opposite party.  That we have seen much force in that argument.  It is clear from Ext. A1 that the complainant’s refrigerator has the value of Rs.17,201/-.  The replacement of a refrigerator having the value of Rs. 12,446/- is definitely unfair.  The 1^st opposite party’s contention that he had not replaced the refrigerator of the complainant was refuted through the production and marking of Ext. A3.  The 1^st opposite party had not specifically denied the allegations levelled by the complainant with regard to the replaced refrigerator; the opposite party want to hide something from this Forum.  The allegation of the complainant that the second refrigerator also had developed rust and its paint was peeled off was not properly denied or even properly addressed by the 1^st opposite party, instead he took the stand that they never replaced the refrigerator.  We already found that such contention is not correct in the light of Ext. A3.  As the overall evaluation of pleadings and evidence adduced in this case it can be easily inferred that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service against the complainant and Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. 

                   9.  Point No.2:- As we already found that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation from the opposite parties and we found Point No.2 in favour of the complainant.

                   10.  In the result, we pass the following order:

          1). Direct the opposite parties to replace the complainant’s refrigerator  

               with a brand new one of the same value mentioned in Ext. A1 within

     15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the  

     opposite parties are directed to pay the price of the refrigerator that is

     Rs. 17,201/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and one

     only) to the complainant with 10% of interest from the date of this

     petition that is on 28/02/2018.

          2). The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/-

              (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant for her mental agony

               sufferings and distress caused in the incident along with cost of Rs.

               3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) with 10% of interest from the

               date of this order.     

              Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2019.

                                                                                         (  Sd/-)

                                                                                       George Baby,

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member-I)   :  (Sd/-)

Sri.Nishad Thankappan (Member-II):  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1:Latha Sunil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1: Bill dated: 28/10/2015 issued by the 1^st opposite party

A2: warranty card

A3: Replacement advice dated: 17/10/2016. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

Copy to:- (1) Latha Sunil,

                    Krishna Bhavan, Vennikkulam PO,

                    Puramattom Village, Valamkara.

2. Sales Manager,

Attinkara Electronics & Furniture, Nedumprayar, T.K. Road,

Maramon, Kozhencherry.

3. The Branch Manager,

Whirlpool Branch Office, Alpha Nagar, University Road,

Changampuzha Nagar, Kalamasserry South, Ernakulam.

4.  The Stock File.