THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No.55/2014
Thursday, the 15th day of January,2015
Petitioners : T.K. Muraleedharan Nair,
Kocupurackal House,
Thalayolaparambu (P.O.)
Kottayam – 686 605.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Electrolux,
Videocon Industries Ltd.
Regd. Office Auto Cars Compound,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad – 431 005.
Maharashtra.
2) Thottupuram Electronics.
Dealers in Home Appliances,
Main Road, Thalayolaparambu.
(Adv. P.V. Krishnakumar)
3) The Area Manager,
P.E. Electronics Limited.
1st Floor No. 31/1036 – C.
Chettichira, Subhash Chandra Bose road,
Kochi - 682019
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 31/01/12014 is as follows.
He had purchased fridge from the 2nd opposite party on 29/12/2008 payment of Rs.9,000/-, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had offered 5 years guaranty to the compressor of the fridge. On 09/11/2013, the fridge became defective, then the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and service centre of the 1st opposite party. The Service Engineer examined the fridge and told that the compressor was defective and the same was intimated to the manufacturing company (opposite party 1). On 02/12/2013, the mechanic came to the residence and repaired the fridge and received Rs.2,200/- from the complainant. Thereafter 2 or 3 days, the fridge became defective. The matter immediately intimated to the Service centre. The opposite parties and the service persons did not take any steps to cure the defects of the fridge. There was clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party alone appeared and filed their version. The other opposite parties 1 and 3, they did not turn up even after accepting the notice from this Forum.
The version filed by the 2nd opposite party is contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The fridge was having no defects even after completing the warranty. The statement that the fridge having 5 years warranty is false. The technician from 1st opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and repaired the fridge and collected Rs.2,200/- as service charge. This will show the manufacture has acted on the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never submit any complaint either the dealer or the manufacturer. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is only the dealer of the 1st opposite party and they got only small commission amount from the manufacturer on the basis of the sale. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents, which are marked as Ext. A1 to A3. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence except the version filed by the 2nd opposite party.
Heard complainant. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidence. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not take any steps to rectify the defects in the fridge. According to him, the complainant approached several time to the opposite parties for his grievance. From Ext.A2, the warranty issued by the 1st opposite party, it will clearly seen that 5 warranty to the product. The 2nd opposite party alone filed the version. The 1st and 3rd opposite party did not turn up. So we have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows.
- We direct the opposite parties to rectify the defects in the fridge as free of costs with perfect working condition.
- We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of these proceedings.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of January, 2015
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of receipt dtd.29/12/2008 from 2nd opposite party
Ext.A2 : Copy of warranty card from 1st opposite party
Ext. A3 : Copy of cash bill No. 2042 from Hi-tech Electronics
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
