Date of Filing : 24.09.2013
Date of Order : 07.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.310/2013
THURSDAY THIS 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr. G. Raj,
S/o. K. Gopal,
No.24, Aravind Nagar,
Madambakkam,
East Tambaram,
Selaiyur Post,
Chennai 600 073. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Manager,
M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd.,
Whirlpool House,
Plot No.40, Sector 44,
Gurgaon 122 002.
2. Ganesh K.Rao,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Whirlpool of India Limited,
No.4/107, Ramapuram Road,
Sathya Nagar,
Manappakkam,
Chennai 600 089.
3. The Proprietor,
Vasanth & Co.,
37/1, 87/2, North Usman Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : M/s. G. Karthik & other
For the Opposite party-1 : M/s. Lavanya
For the opposite party-2 : Exparte.
For the opposite party-3 : M/s. Siva Suyambu
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund Rs.3,300/- the balance amount to be paid by the 1st opposite party from the rate of Fridge Rs.47,800/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to refund a sum of Rs.2000/- with interest and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he has purchased ‘Whirlpool refrigerator manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the dealer of the 3rd opposite party for Rs.45,500/- on 18.01.2013. The complainant has also purchased a V-Guard Stabilizer from the 3rd opposite party on the same day. The above said articles were delivered to the complainant’s residence on 19.01.2013 itself and the delivery charges of Rs.300/- was paid by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party. The said refrigerator was found not properly functioning from 21.06.2013 and complaint to that effect was made by the complainant and the 1st opposite party’s technician’s were attended and was found shortage of gas in the said compressor of the said fridge and the same was rectified on the next day itself. However again it was not properly functioning due to defect of compressor and the complaint made by the complainant after attended by the 1st opposite party’s technicians on 24.06.2013 in order to take return the fridge and to refund the cost of the fridge to the complainant, the bill was collected from the complainant, accordingly on 29.07.2013 the complainant was refunded a sum of Rs.44,500/- by way of cheque towards the cost of the fridge and the 1st opposite party have taken back the said fridge from the complainant. Further the complainant stated that the said fridge was purchased by him for Rs.45,500/-, whereas the 1st opposite party has refunded only Rs.44,500/- deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the gift article of Iron Box which was given by the 3rd opposite party at the time of purchase of fridge, which is not fair on their part and the 1st opposite party is liable to return the said Rs.1000/- and also the delivery charges incurred by complainant of Rs.300/- to the complainant with interest. The complainant also purchased V-Guard stabilizer at the time of purchase of Fridge in order to use with the fridge, when the complainant asked for return of Rs.2000/- from the 1st opposite party they did not refunded the same, as they are not responsible for the same, it has to be dealt with 3rd opposite party, who is the seller. When the complainant approached 3rd opposite party for the same as they have not returned the cost of the stabilizer. As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. As such the complainant has sought for refund a sum of Rs.3,300/- the balance amount to be paid by the 1st opposite party from the rate of Fridge Rs.47,800/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to refund a sum of Rs.2000/- with interest and cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written Version of 1st opposite party is in briefly as follows:
2. The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The 1st opposite party states that a sum of Rs.1000/- was deducted towards freight charges and the same was also explained to the complainant, thus he was refunded a sum of Rs.44,500/- instead of Rs.45,500/-. There is no negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation in this regard and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
3. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 2nd opposite party was set exparte on 14.2.2014.
Written version of 3rd opposite party is in briefly as follows:
4. The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite party submit that the complainant had purchased Whirlpool FF Fridge 483D Prot DLX Real ST refrigerator from the opposite party show room on 18.1.2013 and he is also purchased V.Guard Stabilizer on the same date for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The 3rd opposite party submit that at the time of purchase of the above said product by the complainant, the opposite party has clearly instructed the complainant that for any manufacturing defect the complainant should directly contact the manufacturer or their authorized service centre. The opposite party is not liable for any manufacturing defect. They are not liable to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/- of V.Guard Stabilizer to the complainant when there is no allegation in the complaint about the defect in this product. The opposite party has clearly instructed them once the goods sold will not be taken back and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties are filed and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
7. POINTS 1 to 2 : - .
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite parties 1 & 3, proof affidavits filed by the complainant, the 1st and 3rd opposite parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 filed on the side of complainant and considered the both sides arguments.
8. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased ‘Whirlpool refrigerator manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the dealer the 3rd opposite party for Rs.45,500/- as per the bill Ex.A1 dated 18.01.2013. The complainant has also purchased a V-Guard Stabilizer from the 3rd opposite party on the same day, as per the bill Ex.A2. The above said articles were delivered to the complainant’s residence on 19.01.2013 itself and the delivery charges of Rs.300/- was paid by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party as mentioned in Ex.A1. The said refrigerator was found not properly functioning from 21.06.2013 and complaint to that effect was made by the complainant and the 1st opposite party’s technician’s were attended and was found shortage of gas in the said compressor of the said fridge and the same was rectified on the next day itself. However again it was not properly functioning due to defect of compressor and the complaint made by the complainant after attended by the 1st opposite party’s technicians on 24.06.2013 in order to take return the fridge and to refund the cost of the fridge to the complainant, the bill was collected from the complainant, accordingly on 29.07.2013 the complainant was refunded a sum of Rs.44,500/- by way of cheque towards the cost of the fridge a copy of the cheque is filed as Ex.A3 and the 1st opposite party have taken back the said fridge from the complainant.
9. Whereas complainant has raised grievance that the said fridge was purchased by him for Rs. 45,500-, whereas the 1st opposite party has refunded only Rs.44,500/- deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the gift article of Iron Box which was given by the 3rd opposite party at the time of purchase of fridge, which is not fair on their part and the 1st opposite party is liable to return the said Rs.1000/- and also the delivery charges incurred by complainant of Rs.300/- to the complainant with interest. The complainant also raised grievance, that the complainant was asked to purchase V-Guard stabilizer at the time of purchase of Fridge in order to use with the fridge, when the complainant asked for return of Rs.2000/- from the 3rd opposite party they did not refunded the same on the other hand the 1st opposite party has denied by saying, they are not responsible for the same, it has to be dealt with 3rd opposite party, who is the seller. When the complainant approached 3rd opposite party for the same they have not returned the cost of the stabilizer, as such complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.3300/- with interest against the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. Whereas the opposite parties 1 and 3 have raised objection stating that immediately after receipt of compliant from the complainant on the date of not functioning the fridge properly, the 1st opposite party technicians were sent and was attended and in order to solve the problem the 1st opposite party has repaid a sum of Rs.44,500/- through cheque towards the cost of the fridge after deducting Rs.1000/- as the handling, transport charges in process of taking back the said fridge and the same was received by the complainant, apart from that the complainant have retained the gift article of Iron Box given for the said purchase of fridge and in respect of Rs.2000/- the cost of stabilizer, which is not manufactured by the 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party is not responsible for take back and refund of the said cost. As such the complaint against 1 and 2nd opposite party is not sustainable, and the complainant is not entitled for any refund or compensation sought for in the complaint. The 3rd opposite party has raised objection that since there is no complaint with regard to the V Guard purchased by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the said cost, since with regard to the problem regarding refrigerator was solved by the 1st opposite party, the complaint against the 3rd opposite party is not sustainable and the 3rd opposite party is not liable for any relief sought by the complainant.
11. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the complaint mentioned fridge was purchased by the complainant which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party was taken back and refund of Rs.44,500/- was made by the 1st opposite party, the manufacturer, after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- towards handling transport charges cannot be considered to be proper as contended by the complainant, since the 1st opposite party manufacturer was happened to take back the said fridge, due to manufacturing problem. Therefore in the said event the 1st opposite party would have returned the entire cost of Rs.45,500/- the purchase cost paid by the complainant as per Ex.A1. The contingency raised for incurring handling and transport charges for the 1st opposite party in taking back the said fridge from the complainant residence to their place is incidental which has to be borne by the 1st opposite party themselves. Therefore deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the handling transport charges is not proper and sustainable. Therefore the 1st opposite party is to liable to refund the balance of Rs.1000/- towards the cost of the said fridge, to the complainant. Even that the fact the complainant has received a gift article of Iron Box for the purchase of fridge was retained by him, the 1st opposite party cannot be justified in deducting the said Rs.1000/- in refunding the cost of the fridge . Therefore we are of the considered view that, the 1st opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.1000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 29.07.2013 to till the date of payment. The another sum of Rs.300/- claimed by the complainant is of the delivery charge incurred by the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the said fridge to his residence from the opposite party. Therefore the claim of said amount of Rs.300/ against the opposite parties cannot be sustainable and they are not liable to refund the same.
12. In respect of the claim of refund of Rs.2000/- for the cost of V-Guard stabilizer made by the complainant is not sustainable, since there is no allegation that, the said stabilizer is defective and the complainant also not made any averments in the complaint, he has made attempt with the 3rd opposite party by asking to take back the said stabilizer and to refund the amount. On the other hand the 3rd opposite party is of the dealer, since there is no complaint about the stabilizer and the same was retained by the complainant claiming refund of the amount of cost of the stabilizer from opposite parties is not sustainable, not valid and the complainant is not entitled to. Further the complainant is also not entitled for any compensation sought for in the complaint, since the 1st opposite party immediately on complaint made by the complainant, in the problem of non-functioning of fridge they have attended through the technical staff by sending to the residence of the complainant and they were appeared to be attended the complaint in a proper manner and solved the problem. Further the above said refund amount ordered for Rs.1000/- against the 1st opposite party was also ordered with payment of interest. Therefore we are not inclined to grant compensation to the complainant against opposite parties in the fact and circumstances of this case.
13. Therefore, as discussed above, we are of considered view that the 1st opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 29.07.2013 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation charges to the complainant. No order as against the opposite parties 2 and 3 as they are only formal parties, considering the facts of the case. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 were answered.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards the balance refund of the cost of the fridge with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29.07.2013 to till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards a litigation charges. No order as against the opposite parties 2 and 3.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 7th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 18.1.2013 - Copy of bill for purchase of fridge.
Ex.A2- 18.1.2013 - Copy of bill for purchase of V.Guard Stabilizer.
Ex.A3- 24.7.2013 - Copy of cheque in favour of complainant.
Ex.A4- 7.8.2013 - Copy of legal notice with ack. card.
Ex.A5- 4.9.2013 - Copy of reply given by the 1st opposite party.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
.. Nill ..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
