Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):
The complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief against the opposite party.
2. Brief fact of this complaint is as follows: Complainant approached the opposite party with the complaint of the non-functioning of his Videocon A.C. Opposite party’s technicians checked the defective A.C and advised to replace the compressor. Opposite party installed a new compressor having worth Rs.7,300/- and complainant paid the same. At the time of installing the compressor opposite party offered 5 years guarantee for the compressor. After installing the new compressor the display of the A.C became defective, within 4 months compressor become totally defective, and A.C again non-functioned. Complainant approached opposite party but he has not taken any steps to repair or replace the defective compressor, even though the defect occurred in the warranty period. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order to refund the price of the compressor Rs.7,300/- along with cost and compensation.
3. In this case opposite party is set exparte. On the basis of the pleadings of the complaint the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
4. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, Ext.A1 and expert commission report C1. After closure of evidence, complaint was heard.
5. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that he approached the opposite party with the complaint of his A.C. As per their direction opposite party paid Rs.7,300/- for replacing the defective compressor. They offered 5 year warranty for the new compressor. But within 4 months compressor become defective. Complainant informed the matter to the opposite party but opposite party not turned up. Selling of a defective compressor and non- repairing of the same in the warranty period is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and one document produced by him is marked as Ext.A1 and expert commissioner’s report marked as Ext.C1. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt of Rs.7,300/- dated 24.08.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
7. On a perusal of Ext.A1, it is seen that on 24.08.2013 opposite party received Rs.7,300/- from the complainant for the compressor and in which Ext.A1 bill opposite party offered ‘Five year guarantee’ for the compressor. From Ext.C1 report it is seen that the installed compressor is defective. On the basis of the available materials on record and since the opposite party is exparte, we find no reason to disbelieve the allegation of the complainant. Therefore the complainant’s case stand proved as unchallenged. The non-redressal of the complainant’s grievance by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice and hence opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
8. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby opposite party is directed to return Rs.7,300/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Three hundred only) the price of the compressor along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two 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% from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of February, 2016.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member - I)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sajan Mathews
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Cash receipt dated 24.08.2013 for Rs.7,300/- issued by the
opposite party to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Court Exhibit:
C1 : Commission Report
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Sajan Mathews, Kaattunilathu Ettil, Kuttoor P.O,
Thiruvalla – 689 106.
(2) Cool –Tech Refrigeration, Central Tower, Cross Junction,
Thiruvalla – 1, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
