BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER

C.C. No. 195/2010 Filed on 01.07.2010

Dated : 30.09.2013

Complainant:

Reghunathan, Ponnushus, Vennicode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Muraleedharan Pillai)

Opposite parties:

1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Applicance Division, Godrej No. 1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai.

    

2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Door Nos. IX/418, A4, A4, A6 & A8 & 9, Near Infor Park, Edachira, Kakkanad, Cochin-30 represented by its Managing Director.

    

   (By adv. S. Sreekumar for 1^st & 2^nd O.P)

3. M/s International, Temple Road, Varkala, represented by the Manager.

This C.C having been taken as heard on 09.09.2013, the Forum on 30.09.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of Godrej refrigerators having its office at Kerala represented by the 2^nd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is an authorized dealer of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainant purchased a Godrej refrigerator from the 3^rd opposite party for his daughter who is a P.G. Doctor working at Kozhikode. The refrigerator was purchased on 16.01.2008 for Rs. 10,222.22. Subsequently it was found that the refrigerator was not working properly because of low cooling and the freezer was not working properly. So the complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties and they repaired it, but the defects persisted. Thus they have repaired the refrigerator twice for which the complainant spent an amount of Rs. 2,750/-. In spite of the repair done by the opposite party, the complaint still persists. From this it is very clear that the complaint to the refrigerator is because of the manufacturing defect which cannot be cured by repairs to which the opposite parties are liable. So the complainant sent lawyer's notice to replace the refrigerator by a new one to which they did not respond properly and they are not amenable to settle the matter. So he filed this complaint before this Forum.

Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending as follows: As per the copy of the invoice No. 1439 dated 16.01.2008 issued by Sen International, Varkala, Advocate Indranath, Ponnushas, Venniyodu had purchased a Godrej refrigerator. The refrigerator manufactured by the company has one year warranty from the date of sale. The service centre of the company received a complaint (after using for 15 months) from Dr. Devi of Varkala, regarding the functioning of the refrigerator. The complaint was attended on 23.04.2009 and the defect was rectified by replacing the thermostat. Since the warranty period had expired, the customer had paid the cost of the replaced part. For poor cooling, gas charging was done at the cost of the customer. However cooling coil was changed free of cost. The fan motor was to be replaced, but the customer did not permit the technician to do it. Offer was made to replace the fan motor also free of cost. Mr. Reghunath, the complainant herein, made a complaint addressed to the opposite parties herein vide his letter dated 08.12.2009 stating that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the machine and demanded free replacement. On receipt of the complaint, Senior Manager (Service) of the company spoke to the complainant on telephone, assured him free service to rectify all complaints and offered extension of warranty period for two years. This was followed by e-mail with a request to confirm acceptance of the offer. But unfortunately, the complainant did not accept the offer. Later, the complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel vide notice dated 15.02.2010 reiterating the demand for a free replacement of the refrigerator stating that the one supplied had manufacturing defects. Senior Manager (Service) of the company replied to the letter expressing his regret for the inconvenience caused to the customer. He told the counsel that he had earlier contacted the customer on telephone, explained the cause of failure and had promised him to refund the charges collected by the service centre or extent the warranty of the refrigerator by two years. But the customer insisted both refund and extension of warranty. This certainly was not a reasonable demand. The opposite parties do not subscribe to the allegation that the refrigerator supplied to the complainant has any kind of manufacturing defects. The term manufacturing defect has a different connotation which is being loosely used to denote any kind of defect noticed in a machine. This is not correct. All consumable durables manufactured and marketed by the opposite parties are subjected to strict quality check by the quality assurance department and those which meet the technical parameters are only passed for sale. However, for many reasons an electrical and electronic apparatus might develop some snag giving problem to the user. It is for the said purpose, the manufacturers provide warranty. Defective parts are replaced free of cost during the warranty period. The term manufacturing defect can be attributed in case of the failure of a system on account of design fault or material failure on account of use of substandard material. Unsatisfactory performance of thermostat, an electrical device, is not on account of manufacturing defect. It is pertinent to note that on replacing the defective thermostat with another one of the same type the refrigerator worked satisfactorily. Opposite parties give utmost importance to consumer satisfaction. For the said purpose, opposite parties generally take a liberal view of the complaint of their customer and try their best to accommodate their views. It is in the said context that offer was made to refund the expenses incurred by the complainant or extent warranty by two years though they have no legal obligation to do so.

Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents Exts. P1 to P5 were marked through the complainant. No affidavit and documents were filed by the opposite party. Complainant was cross examined by the opposite party. An expert commission was appointed by this Forum to inspect the refrigerator in dispute. Commissioner filed his report which is marked as Ext. C1. 3^rd opposite party was set exparte.

Points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether the allegation of manufacturing defect is proved?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as prayed for?

Point (i):-Complainant approached this Forum alleging manufacturing defect of a refrigerator. As per Sec. 13 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, complainant took an expert opinion to substantiate his arguments. Going through Ext. C1, which is the commission report, expert reports as follows: “I have conducted an inspection of the above refrigerator on 26.05.2012. But the dealer or their representative did not present during the time of inspection. My inspection report is as follows. The above refrigerator was purchased by the complainant on 16.01.2008 from M/s Sen International, Temple Road, Varkala. The cost of the refrigerator is Rs. 12,695/- including VAT. The above refrigerator manufactured by M/s Godrej, Model Penta Cool No. GP E 220 P/2007 frost free type 3 star rated and R 290/R690 blended gas and the gross volume is 197 L and storage volume 162 L capacities and shows the 573 unit consumed in one year. During my inspection it is noticed that the first complaint about the refrigerator was on 23.04.2009, and the complaint is non-functioning the thermostat and the second complaint i.e; gas charging, relay and over load protection has been attend on 28.08.2009. The repairing charge for the first complaint is Rs. 750/- and second complaint is Rs. 1,880/-. After the 2 repairs cooling was changed. Now the refrigerator is not working. During my inspection the following complaints are observed. Timer is not working. Heater is not working due the complaint of Bimetal, Fan motor is not working, compressor is seen that replaced one, with Sl. No. GLB 16 x SR 000 6028 with Hydro carbon blend 20 1.2 A single phase. At present the above refrigerator is not in a working condition”.

Though notice was given to the opposite parties regarding the inspection, they failed to attend the same. After filing the commission report, before this Forum also, opposite party neither filed any objection nor the commissioner was cross examined. So what is stated in the commission report stands unchallenged. So presumption here is opposite parties also favours the findings of the commissioner. Commissioner clearly states that the refrigerator is not in a working condition. Opposite parties in their version states that they had rectified the defects pointed out by the complainant in time and as a gesture of goodwill, they are ready to refund the expenses incurred by the complainant or extend the warranty by two years. This statement itself is an admission to escape from a greater liability if manufacturing defect is proved. Then before the Forum also, they have not attended the inspection done by the expert, nor filed any objection to the commission report or not cross examined the commissioner. So this also proves their admission of inherent manufacturing defect which they might have noted at the time of rectification of the first complaint itself. Even though the word 'manufacturing defect' is not used, commissioner clearly points out the defects of the refrigerator, which is now not in working condition. Para 4 of the version filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 is referred here, in which they try to explain the term 'manufacturing defect'. But we purchase a refrigerator not to use upto the warranty period. We expect a better life span, that is why we prefer reputed company products. Here, the warranty period is for 1 year. We don't expect an electronic device to end its life within this time. There may be wear and tear, but to what extent is the question which arises here. Here the commission report comes. Commissioner inspects the refrigerator within 4 years of its purchase, and he clearly points out that it is dead. So the manufacturing defect is clearly established. Complainant has every right to get it replaced or refunded.

Points (ii) & (iii):- A refrigerator purchased to be used normally for more than 10 years, stopped functioning at the end of the 3^rd year. Before that period also there were repair. So unfair trade practice of the opposite parties is seen here. For the mental agony and loss of comfort by not using the refrigerator, complainant is to be compensated. Opposite parties supplied a defective equipment to the complainant who in turn was dragged to a litigation to protect his right as a consumer. So for this, opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of litigation also.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one, or in the alternative refund Rs. 10,222/- within a month of receipt of this order along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost. The choice is left to the complainant. After this period, if refund is not done, the amount (Rs. 10,222/-) will carry interest at the rate of 12% till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of September 2013.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 195/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Reghunathan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of cash/credit bill dated 16.01.2008 for Rs. 12,650/-.

P2 - Copy of service card No. 756852 issued by Authorized

Appliance Service Centre, Godrej Smart Care.

P3 - Copy of sale bill dated 28.08.2009 for Rs. 1,880/-.

P4 - True copy of letter dated 08.12.2009 issued by complainant to

opposite parties.

P5 - Copy of e-mail message dated 30.12.2009.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT

C1 - Commission Report prepared by K.P. Chandrababu.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb