IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 27th day of December, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.216/2011 (Filed on 03.11.2011)
Between:
P.C. Jacob,
Payattukalayil Veedu,
Keezhvaipur.P.O.,
Mallappally Taluk – 689581. ….. Complainant
And:
Cool Tech Refrigeration,
Thiruvalla, Rep. by its-
Managing Partner,
Central Tower, Cross Junction,
Thiruvalla – 1,
Pin – 689 101. …... Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is the owner of a Frost Free Refrigerator manufactured by Electrolux Company and the opposite party is the authorized service centre of Electrolux Company. The complainant’s refrigerator became damaged on 18.07.2011. So the complainant contacted the opposite party and told about the complaints of the Fridge. One mechanic of the opposite party came and examined the refrigerator and told that the complaint of the fridge is the defect of its compressor and further told that it has to be taken to the service centre of the opposite party for repairs and he took the fridge to the service centre and collected ` 250 as transporting charges. The mechanic also given a job card. Thereafter on 28.07.2011 the mechanic brought the refrigerator to the house of the complainant and told that the complaints of the fridge was rectified by replacing the compressor and collected ` 4,850 as the cost of the compressor and service charges and given a cash receipt for the same. But he had not given the bill or the warranty card of the compressor by saying that it is not with him at that time. But on 29.07.2011 itself the said fridge became defective again. The complaints of the fridge were brought to the notice of the opposite party again and a mechanic came and changed the compressor but the fridge again became defective on the next day. Thereafter, different mechanics of the opposite party examined the fridge and tried to rectify the defect of several occasions. But the defects were not rectified or they have not given the bill or the warranty card of the replaced compressor. After 06.09.2011, opposite party did not show any response to the complainant’s grievances in spite of the complainant’s request for repairing the fridge. In the said circumstances, the complainant was compelled to purchase a new fridge. Since the opposite party have collected a total amount of ` 5,100 from the complainant they were bound to rectify the defect of the complainant’s fridge. Because of the above said acts of the opposite party, the complainant had sustained financial loss and mental agony and it is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of the amount of ` 5,100 collected by the opposite party along with compensation of ` 5,000.
3. In this case opposite party is exparte.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party is the authorized service centre of Electrolux Refrigerator and the complainant’s refrigerator was repaired by the opposite party on several occasions and collected an amount of ` 5,100 from the complainant as repairing charges. But the complainant’s fridge is not working even after the repairs of the opposite party. Now the opposite party is not turning up for repairing the fridge in spite of the complainant’s request for repairing the fridge. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 3 documents, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt No.5639 dated 28.07.2011 for ` 4,850 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the job card No.215 dated 18.07.2011 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2(a) is the notes made by the complainant on the reverse side of Ext.A2 showing the intimations, history of the complaints and the repairs of the complainant’s fridge from 13.07.2011 to 02.10.2011. Ext.A3 is the letter of the complainant addressed to the Electrolux Company and their reply to the complainant’s letter.
8. On a perusal of the deposition of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A3, it is seen that the opposite party have collected an amount of ` 5,100 from the complainant as repairing charges. Even then the defect of the complainant’s fridge is not rectified so far. Since the opposite party is exparte, the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. The non rectification of the complaints of the fridge of the complainant by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Therefore, we find that this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to return ` 5,100 (Rupees Five Thousand One hundred only), collected by the opposite party from the complainant, along with compensation of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of December, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : P.C. Jacob
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Cash receipt No.5639 dated 28.07.2011 for ` 4,850 issued by the
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Job card No.215 dated 18.07.2011 issued by the opposite party in the
name of the complainant.
A2(a) : Relevant portion of Ext.A2 job card.
A3 : Photocopy of the E-mail letter sent by the complainant addressed
to P.E. Electronics Ltd.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) P.C. Jacob, Payattukalayil Veedu, Keezhvaipur.P.O.,
Mallappally Taluk – 689581.
(2) Managing Partner, Central Tower, Cross Junction,
Thiruvalla – 1, Pin – 689 101.
(3) The Stock File.
