DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day of May 2009.

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member)

C.C.No.154/2006

P. Damodara Menon

Sarath Sadan

Archana Colony

Akathethara

Palakkad - Complainant

(Adv .K.Balachandran, V.B.Brigu & P.Rajesh)

V/s

1. Das Agencies

7/10(1) College Road

Palakkad

(Adv.R.Manikandan )

2. L G Electronics India Pvt Ltd

702, Bhikaji Cama Bhavan

Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi - 110066

3. L G Electronics India Pvt Ltd

11/434 Eranjikkal Building

Cherooty Road

Kozhikkode – 673 032

4. Divya Electronics

Orma 15/526, Near Krishna Temple

Kunnathurmedu

Palakkad. - Opposite Parties

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President

The case of the complainant is that complainant's son purchased a refrigerator from Ist Opposite party on 23.08.2003 and complainant is using the same as a beneficiary. Ist Opposite party is the dealer and 2^nd Opposite party is the manufacturer. Opposite parties gave warranty for one year for all parts of the refrigerator and an additional warranty of 4 years for the compressor from the date of purchase. The cooling of the refrigerator comes through the vents of the tube which were installed on the four sides of both doors. The compressor became defective and there was no cooling effect as a result of which doors became rusty. Even though the service personnels of

- 2 -

Opposite parties noted the defect in the compressor within the warranty period, they were not ready either to repair or replace the same. Hence the complaint.

Ist Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Notice against 2^nd opposite party was not served as the present address was changed. No steps was further taken by the complainant in this regard. 3^rd Opposite party filed version and 4^th opposite party was set ex-parte. Ist opposite party filed version with the following contentions. Opposite party contented that complainant is not a consumer as the fridge was not purchased by him. Further according to Ist opposite party, there is no defect in the refrigerator and if at all there is any manufacturing defect the sole of responsibility is upon 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer. Supplimentary 3^rd Opposite party raised the contention that the technician allotted to note the defect in the refrigerator has not stated any complaint for the compressor, only door was rusted which the company agreed to paint free of cost. But the complainant was not ready for the same.

The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of the proof affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A2 were marked. Complainant filed a statement stating that opposite party has replaced the compressor on 25.03.2008 and hence now the complainant claims only compensation for the delay in replacing and for the mental agony suffered. Ist opposite party filed affidavit. 3^rd Opposite party no affidavit was filed.

Now the issued for consideration are:

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

2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issue No.1

Complainant has filed a statement stating that compressor was replaced and repairing was done on 25.03.08 and hence now the complainant is claiming only compensation for delay and mental agony. Supporting document is also produced where in it is stated that compressor replaced and painting done. From the evidence on record, it can be seen that opposite parties took more than 3 years to rectify a defect occurred during the period of warranty itself. Hence there is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant submitted that the compressor was replaced. We are of the view that in addition to that complainant is also entitled for compensation for delay and mental agony.

- 3 -

Ist opposite party as the dealer cannot escape liability stating the sole responsibility is upon the

manufacturer. 4^th Opposite party being the franchisee is exonerated from liability. 3^rd Opposite party the authorised service centre of 2^nd opposite party has replaced the compressor and also repairing work was carried out.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Ist opposite party is directed to pay complainant Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and the mental agony suffered by the complainant together with Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on the 27^th day of May 2009

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Original Bill No.9719 of Das Agencies dated 23.08.03

2. Ext. A2 - Copy of warranty

    

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Cost (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings)

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent