DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Monday the 28th day of November 2022
C.C. 124/2016
Complainant
Thomas. T. A.,
Arathi, Oothil Thodi,
Beypore – 673015.
Opposite Parties
1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd.,
Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai – 400079.
(By Adv. Sri. Sabu John Mathew)
- Nandilath G-Mart, G- Mart Junction,
Mavoor Road, Calicut – 673004.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Godrej refrigerator from the showroom of the second opposite party on 12/03/2015. But the cooling system of the refrigerator was completely down and on contacting the service centre, the complaint was solved. But within a few weeks, the cooling system went worse and the same problem repeated. The technician came to repair the defect on 14/11/2015. The technician stated that the defect was connected with the freezer and for repairs the charges would be Rs. 4,500/-. Though he contacted the second opposite party, their response was negative. On a thorough verification of the refrigerator, it was noticed that the model number, gross volume and storage volume was completely scratched from the power saving guide. Hence the complaint for getting replacement of the product with a new one.
3. Separate written versions were filed by the opposite parties wherein they have denied the averments and claims made in the complaint.
4. According to the first opposite party, who is the manufacturer, the fridge had a minor complaint which was solved properly. But the averment that after a few weeks, the cooling system went worse and the same complaint repeated is not correct. The second complaint was with regard to the freezer and its cooling system. On inspection by the technician, it was found that a hole was there in the freezer body. The mother of the complainant told that since the article which was kept in the freezer could not be taken back, a knife was used to get it and as a result, the damage in the freezer was caused. Since the damage occurred due to mishandling by the customer, the repair cannot be made free of cost. The allegation that the model number, gross volume and storage volume printed on the refrigerator had completely scratched from the power saving guide is false. However, the first opposite party is ready to repair the refrigerator if the complainant is ready and willing to bear the cost. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The second opposite party has admitted the purchase of the refrigerator by the complainant from them. They are not providing after sales service. There is technical service center for the first opposite party in Kozhikode district. At the time of purchase, the warranty card and bill were issued to the complainant. It is true that the complainant had contacted the first opposite party and the technicians had repaired the refrigerator. Whenever complaint was reported to the second opposite party, it was informed to the first opposite party. The damage caused to the freezer was due to mishandling by the customer. The second opposite party is in no way liable. With the above contentions, the second opposite party also prays to dismiss the complaint.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The first and second opposite parties filed affidavit and they were not cross-examined by the complainant. The report of the expert was marked as Ext C1.
8. We heard both sides.
9. Point No. 1: The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the Godrej refrigerator bought by him became defective and there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties to repair the same defect free of cost. The prayer in the complaint is for replacement of the refrigerator with a new one. The first opposite party is the manufacturer and the second opposite party is the seller.
10. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 12/03/2015 paying Rs. 13,000/- as evidenced by Ext A1 retail invoice. The product was having five year warranty for compressor and one year warranty for bulb, glass and add on plastic parts etc. Ext A2 is the copy of the warranty card. The grievance of the complainant is that the cooling system was completely down and even after repairs the same problem repeated and the cooling system had completely gone. When examined as PW1, the complainant has asserted that the technicians of the first opposite party demanded Rs. 4,500/- for repairing the defect.
11. Admittedly, the complaint was registered during the warranty period. The case advanced by the opposite parties is that the complaint was with regard to the freezer and damage occurred due to mishandling by the customer. Their specific case is that since the article which was kept in the freezer could not be taken back, a knife was used to get it and as a result, damage in the freezer was caused. But there is absolutely no evidence to show that the damage had occurred due to mishandling by the customer. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext C1 which was prepared by none other than the Professor and Head of Department of Electrical Engineering, NIT, Calicut. It is reported in Ext C1 that the refrigerator was not in a working condition properly at the time of the inspection. However the Commissioner could not see any physical damage in the freezer compartment of the refrigerator. Thus Ext C1 rules out any such damage at the hands of the customer. There is no reason to disbelieve Ext C1. The contention of the first opposite party is that the complainant had replaced the freezer before the inspection by the Commissioner. But the said allegation is not supported by any evidence. Thus based on Ext C1, the contention of the opposite parties that the damage occurred to the refrigerator due to mishandling by the customer cannot be accepted. As we have already stated, the complaint arose during the warranty period. It is not shown that there was any mishandling by the customer. That being the position, there was no justification in demanding repair charges during the warranty period. The complainant is entitled to get the refrigerator repaired free of cost.
12. The prayer in the complaint is for replacement of the refrigerator. But it is not proved that the refrigerator has any inherent manufacturing defect. The expert has reported that the refrigerator was not in a working condition and the exact problem could be understood only after testing and detailed analysis of the refrigerator in a laboratory. It is not stated in Ext C1 that the refrigerator is having any inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant has not taken any steps to show that the refrigerator is having any manufacturing defect. In the absence of any such evidence, the prayer for replacement of the refrigerator with a new one cannot be allowed.
13. From the evidence in hand, it can be seen that there was neglect on the part of the opposite parties in redressing the grievance of the complainant. Demanding charges for repairs under warranty amount to deficiency in service. The contention of the second opposite party seller that once they sold the product, they have no responsibility/ accountability cannot be accepted. The opposite parties are liable to take steps to repair the refrigerator free of cost. They are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.
14. Point No.2: In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC 124/2016 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to take steps to repair the refrigerator of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charge for such repairs.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
e) The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 28th day of November, 2022.
Date of Filing: 08/03/2016.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Retail invoice.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the warranty card.
Ext. A3 – Service centre slip.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Thomas. T. A (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Commission Exhibits
Ext C1 – Commission report.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
