Date of filing: 22.04.2014.
Date of disposal: 14.10.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Tuesday, the 14th day of October, 2014
C.C.No.102 of 2014
Between:
Consumer Guidance Society Representing: Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri Panduranga Rao, Aged about 37 years, R/o.D.No.1-4, Thempalli, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.
…..Complainant.
And
1. Authorized Signatory, Rajkamals Electronics, 27-14-62, Rajagopalachari Street, Near Buckinghampet Post Office, Governorpet, Vijayawada – 02.
2. Authorized Signatory, Whirlpool of India Limited, Whirlpool House, Plot No.40, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 30.9.2014, in the presence of Consumer Guidance Society for complainant; 1st opposite party not pressed; opposite party no.2 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This a complaint filed by complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the total sale consideration of Rs.9,300/- paid to 1st opposite party or in the alternative to replace the defective refrigerator with a defect free one, to direct the 2nd opposite party to refund the charges collected from the complainant at Rs.4,500/-, to direct the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, for costs and other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Whirlpool brand 180 liters model refrigerator on 16.4.2010 for Rs.9,300/- vide invoice No.172 from the 1st opposite party, which is manufactured by 2nd opposite party and which has got one year warranty for whole product and five years for compressor. But to the deep shock and dismay of complainant, the said refrigerator was ceased to function resulting in the complete non functioning of cooling system. The complainant approached the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party who changed the Tarmastat by charging Rs.750/- though the refrigerator is within warranty. But again the refrigerator developed same problem and the 2nd opposite party again collected Rs.1,650/- on 10.5.2013 for repairs by injecting gas into defective refrigerator. Again the refrigerator developed some problem within a short spell of time and the complainant approached the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party on 8.11.2013 who collected Rs.1,850/- for injecting gas into refrigerator. But again the refrigerator developed same problem and the complainant approached the authorized service center who informed that the compressor was defective and the compressor was changed. Again the refrigerator completely ceased to work yet again the complainant lodge his grievance with the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party but no one turned up. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 20.2.2014 to the opposite parties. The notice of 1st opposite party returned and the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and informed that the brand new refrigerator will be provided, but so far there is no response. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. In this case, the complainant filed a memo not pressing the case against 1st opposite party and the same is allowed. The case against 1st opposite party is dismissed as not pressed. The 2nd opposite party remained absent.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. None examined on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the complaint are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2 in selling defective refrigerator to the complainant?
2) If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
6 Point No.1:
On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents) the case of complainant is that he purchased Whirlpool 180 liters fridge from the 1st opposite party on 16.4.2010 under Ex.A1 cash invoice for Rs.9,300/-. Ex.A5 broacher disclosed that there is one year warranty for refrigerator and four years for compressor. The main grievance of the complainant is that the said refrigerator developed repairs and he approached the authorized service center of the 2nd opposite party on 24.4.2013, 10.5.201, 8.11.2013. The further grievance of the complainant is that the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party charged Rs.750/- on 24.4.2013, Rs.1,650/- on 29.5.2013 and Rs.1,850/- on 17.1.2014 for changing Tharmastat and for gas charging respectively. In support of his contention, the complainant filed Ex.A2 to A4 cash bills. Perusal of Ex.A2 to A4 bills discloses that the same were issued by Vishnu Home Care Services, which is authorized service center of 2nd opposite party. According to complainant, after getting repairs, the said refrigerator again developed repairs and nobody attended. Having vexed with their attitude, the complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.A6. The 2nd opposite party received the notice under acknowledgement which is annexed to Ex.A6 and the notice of 1st opposite party returned under Ex.A7.
8. In this case, the complainant not pressed the claim against the 1st opposite party. Though the 2nd opposite party received legal notice under Ex.A6 and also the notice in this complaint was served on 2nd opposite party , the 2nd opposite party has not made its appearance before this Forum. As such the 2nd opposite party remained absent and the allegations made against it are unchallenged. According to complainant, the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party collected the amount of Rs.4,500/- under Ex.A2 to A4 bills, though the said refrigerator is well within warranty period. In this regard, on perusal of record, it is clear that, admittedly the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 16.4.2010 and perusal of Ex.A5 broacher discloses that there is one year warranty for the product and five years for compressor. Admittedly the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party repaired the refrigerator by changing the tharmastat and by filling the gas in the year 2013 and 2014. As such warranty would not applicable to those works and the complainant has to bear the amount.
9. It is the further case of complainant even after repairs, the refrigerator not worked properly and when he approached the authorized service center of 2nd opposite party, finally they stated that the compressor is defective and it has to be changed. Further repairing of refrigerator by complainant three times clearly indicates that there is some manufacturing problem. Further the 2nd opposite party has not made its appearance to deny the allegations made by complainant. As such this Forum has no option to draw an adverse inference that there is problem with regard to compressor, which has got five years warranty. The 2nd opposite party being manufacturing is liable to make the loss good occurred to complainant.
10. According to Section 2 (1) (f) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relating to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods. As per Section 14 (1) (a) & (b) the buyer is entitle to remedy by way of either remove the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer. The complainant is used the refrigerator 3 years without any defect, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.
Point No.2:
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party no.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.9,300/- (Rupees nine thousand and three hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of order till the date of realization by taking back the refrigerator which is with the complainant and costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. The other claims of complainant if any shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 14th day of October, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 16.04.2010 Original copy of invoice.
Ex.A2 to A4 Original copy of cash bills.
Ex.A5 Original copy of warranty card.
Ex.A6 20.02.2014 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs and acknowledgement.
Ex.A7 Returned postal cover
On behalf of the opposite parties: -None-
PRESIDENT (FAC).
