IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 17^th   day of September 2021.

                                      Filed on 19-08-2019

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma, B.A.L,LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.200/2019

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite parties:-

Smt. Leelamma                                                       1.    Authorised Signatory     

Canal Puthuval                                                               Reshmi Happy Home     

Thottappally.P.O                                                            Madhava Junction

Alappuzha                                                                     N.H. Harippad

(Party in person)                                                                                Alappuzha

                                                                                        (Party in person)

                                                                              2.     Authorised Signatory

                                                                                      Liebherr Appliances India

                                                                                             Pvt. Ltd, A-1/6

                                                                                       Shendra MIDC

                                                                                       Aurangabad-431154

                                                                                       (Party in person)

                                               O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Complaints   case in brief is as follows:-

          Complainant purchased a fridge from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 19,200/-. It was assured that any manufacturing defect will be rectified and if it is beyond repair they will exchange with a new fridge or the price will be returned.

2.      For about 15 days the fridge was functioning without any complaint.  However later ice started forming in the freezer and the current charge had increased.  Complaint was given to the 1^st opposite party and they informed the 2^nd opposite party.  Though technicians inspected the fridge and conducted repairs the complaint is still there.  One of the technicians informed that it is having manufacturing defect. Though complainant approached the 1^st opposite party they were not ready to replace the fridge or return the amount.  It amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite parties to exchange the fridge or else to return Rs.19,200/- being the value of the fridge.   Complainant is also claiming an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.

2.       1^st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-

          The complaint is not maintainable.  Complainant had purchased a fridge from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  At the time of purchase a demonstration was given to the complainant by the employees.  There was no assurance of exchange of the fridge if it is having a manufacturing defect. It was only informed that the defects if any can be cured during warranty period.

3.      Forming ice in the freezer is not a manufacturing defect.  The fridge purchased by the complainant is a single door fridge.  There is a defrosting button in the fridge to melt the ice formed in the freezer.  Complainant is not defrosting the fridge using the button and that is why ice cubes are formed in the fridge. In double door fridges there is automatic defrosting system and it was informed to the complainant.  Complainant was specifically instructed to defrost the fridge manually.

4.      On 19/2/2019 itself the complaint was informed to the 2^nd opposite party and authorized service technicians had inspected the fridge and found that it is not having any complaint.  On 23/2/2019 same complaint was repeated and again technicians inspected the fridge and found that there was no manufacturing defect.  On 9/6/2019 also technicians inspected the fridge and found that it was not having any complaint.  Besides that technicians attached to the 1st opposite party had also inspected the fridge and found that it is not having any manufacturing defect.  Since the fridge is not having any manufacturing defect complainant is not entitled to exchange the same or entitled for compensation.  There is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and so the complaint may be dismissed.

5.      2^nd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-

          It is clarified that the DC 220 ltr refrigerator has to defrost in every 3-4 days which is as per product guide line mentioned under manual on product body and under warranty card.   It is a product feature and shall not be considered as defect in the refrigerator.

6.      On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the fridge exchanged. In the alternative whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.19,200/- being the price of the fridge?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony?

4. Reliefs and cost?

7.      Evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 series from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 from the side of the opposite parties.

8. Points No.1 to3:-

PW1 is the son of the complainant.   He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 and A2 series.

9.      Rw1 is the manager of the 1^st opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version. 

10. RW2 is the local manager of the 2^nd opposite party.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the version.

11.    Complainant purchased a refrigerator from the 1^st opposite party on 11/2/2019 for an amount of Rs. 19,200/-.  It was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.  The case of complainant is that for about 15 days it was working without any trouble.  Thereafter there is formation of ice in large scale and she had to pay excess current charge.   Though she complained with the 1^st opposite party who had sent technicians of the 2^nd opposite party several times the complaint was not cured.  Hence she had filed the complaint for exchanging the fridge and in the alternative for realizing the amount and for the compensation of Rs.20,000/-.  1^st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting that at the time of purchase the working of the fridge was demonstrated to the complainant through their employees.  It was a single door fridge for which defrost has to be done manually. There is a button for defrosting the fridge and it has to be operated once or twice in a week.  It was explained to the complainant several times.  Though the technicians inspected the fridge they could not find out any defect and so there is no deficiency of service from their part.  2^nd opposite party also filed a version contenting that   complainant had to defrost the fridge  every 3 -4 days which is specifically mentioned  in the product guide line and the  formation of ice is not any defect.  Hence they also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.    On 24/12/2020 complainant filed an application stating that she is having back pain and under gone surgery in her knee.  Since she is unable to attend the Commission, her son may be permitted to conduct the case.  Accordingly the son of complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 and A2 series.  Opposite parties were examined as RW1 and RW2 respectively.  The fact that complainant purchased a fridge from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party is not in dispute since it is proved by Ext.A1 bill.  From Ext.A1 it is gathered that on 11/2/2019 complainant purchased the fridge by paying an amount of Rs.19,200/-. Ext.A2 series are the photo graphs produced by the complainant to prove the formation of ice in certain plastic vessels kept in the fridge.  In cross examination PW1 contented that during the time of defrost there is a sound from the fridge.   For about 15 days from the date of purchase there was no defect.  He admitted that when complaints are made to the opposite parties it was promptly attended.  RW1 and 2 gave evidence contenting that there was no manufacturing defect for the product and whenever there was a complaint it was promptly attended. 

13.    Admittedly the refrigerator purchased by the complainant is a single door one. As contented by the opposite parties single door refrigerators are to be defrosted manually for which a button is provided.  Defrosting has to be done once in 3-4 days.   Formation of ice in the refrigerator will also depend upon the temperature in the atmosphere.  In a double door fridge defrost is done automatically whereas in single door fridges there is no such system.  In the complaint and the  chief affidavit the case advanced by complainant and PW1 who is none other than her son is that there is formation of ice in the fridge.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 contented that on getting complaint service technicians from 1^st opposite party as well as from the 2^nd opposite party inspected the refrigerator several times and informed the complainant that it is only the problem of defrosting.  According to PW1 at the time of defrosting there occurs a sound.  Naturally there will occur the sound of breaking of ice at the time of defrosting.   According to complainant one of the service engineers of the opposite parties at the time of inspection  informed that it is a manufacturing defect and so she is entitled to exchange the fridge.  However the said service technician was not examined to prove the said contention.  It is seen that there was no manufacturing defect and it is only the mistake in using the fridge without proper defrost.   Complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show that the refrigerator is having any manufacturing defect.  Since opposite parties contend that. It is not having any manufacturing defect it was incumbent upon the part of the complainant, to Inspect the fridge by an expert and produce the report to prove the allegations. Without such an expert report, the contention of complainant cannot be taken in to account especially when opposite parties contented that there is no manufacturing defect and it is only a mistake in using the fridge.  In said circumstances we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled for any relief since she could not prove that the refrigerator is having any manufacturing defect.  These points are found against the complainant.

14.    Point No.4:-

          In the result complaint is dismissed.  Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 17^th   day of September, 2021.

   Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

                                              Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Linu.L(Complainant)

Ext.A1                -        Bill dated 1/2/2019                  

Ext.A2series        -        photographs

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1          -        Varghese Mathai(Witness) 

RW2          -        Harikrishnan.J.S(Witness)

//True Copy //

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-