THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO - 779/2017
ORDER DATED. 30/05/2019
(Appeal filed against the order in cc.no. 779/15, cdrf, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:-
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
N. Rajagopal S/o Sankara Narayanapanicker,
Raj Vihar, Paipra, Manari P.O, Muvattupuzha.
V/S
RESPONDENTS:
- M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. India Ltd,
Angel Arcade P.O, Kochi University P.O,
Kalamassery, Kochi- 24.
Represented by its Managing Director.
(By Adv. Jaideep G Nair )
- M/s Kottisarakudiyil Agencies,
Kacherithazham, Muvattupuzha- 686661,
Represented by its Managing Director.
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A :MEMBER
Appellant is the complainant in C.C.No. 779/2015 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. Complaint is regarding the recurring defects of the refrigerator suppled by the opposite parties. The district forum partly allowed the complaint, against that order the complainant has filed this appeal.
2. Facts of the case is that , the complainant purchased a refrigerator from the 2nd opposite party dealer, manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 12,400/- on 08-09-2011 as per invoice number 763, copy of the invoice is marked as Exbt. A1. The refrigerator had five years warranty for the compressor. While so the refrigerator started mal- functioning and it was therefore sent to the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party for repairs. The compressor was replaced on five different occasions including 04-07-2014, 09-12-2014 and 21-07-2015. The service agent collected Rs. 2700/- towards transportation charges on different occasions. But the cooling of the fridge was very low and there was no ice formation. The complainant registered a complaint on 02-11-2015. But there was no response from the opposite parties. The frequent defects shown by the fridge is due to the manufacturing defects. Therefore the complainant claimed refund of the price with interest and compensation. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and the 1st opposite party filed his version. The 2nd opposite party did not file version.
3. The 1st opposite party in his version contended that after the purchase of the fridge on 20-01-2012, the complaint had booked six complaints during the last four years and all those complaints were attended to and the spare parts were replaced as per the warranty terms. All the complaints were duly attended and complaint No. 659315 was also offered for repair, but the complainant did not permit to carry out the repair. The defects alleged were not due to any manufacturing defects. The complainant is not entitled to get any costs and compensation as prayed for and the complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
4. The complainant had filed proof affidavit and Exbt. A1 to A3 documents were marked. The complainant was cross examined by the opposite parties. The district forum stated that during cross-examination the complainant denied the allegation that the opposite party had offered the repairs in furtherance of the complaint number 659313. The complainant admitted that the service personnel came and inspected the fridge and found that the thermostat, relay switch and the compressor were faulty and they estimated an amount of Rs. 4000/- for repair. Pw1 added that the technician of the opposite party came to his house for inspection of the fridge only after the complaint was filed before the Forum. The complainant also added that the opposite party had changed the compressor of the fridge five times.
5. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence before the forum. The lower forum that Exbt. A1 invoice dated 08-09-2011 is the evidence of the purchase of the fridge. The 1st repair by replacement of the compressor was on 28-11-2014 as per Exbt. A3. From these document it can be found that from the date of purchase ie 08-09-2011 till 28-11-2014 there was no complaint, and therefore it has to be found that the refrigerator had no manufacturing defect. The complainant had used the refrigerator without any defects for four years. Thereafter defects occurred in the compressor and the opposite party replaced the compressor under warranty. On 21-07-2015 also the compressor was replaced.
6. The Forum below found that the allegation that the compressor had to be replaced five times is not seen supported by any documents. The complainant purchased fridge on 08-09-2011 and it carried a warranty of five years. Therefore at the time of filing the complaint on 26-11-2015 the warranty was in force. The allegation of the complainant was that his complaint dated 02-11-2015 was not attended by the opposite parties in time. After filing this complaint the opposite party inspected the fridge and demanded Rs. 4000/- towards the repair charges, it was not fair since it was within warranty period .
7. In the above circumstance, the complainant was entitled to get the fridge repaired under warranty as on 02-11-2015. The opposite party has no case that they had repaired the fridge under warranty. On the above discussions the District Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party in providing sufficient service to the complainant and the forum issued the following direction. The 1st opposite party shall attend the repairs of the fridge purchased by the complainant as per Exbt. A1 invoice, under warranty within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without demanding any charges for the replacement of the materials covered under warranty as on 02-11-2015. The forum also allowed Rs. 2000/- as the costs of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the order complainant has filed this appeal.
8. The complainant alleged that the defects occurred within the warranty period and the defects were due to manufacturing defects. So he wants refund of the price of the refrigerator with 12% interest and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation.
9. In this case the complainant has not produced any expert report regarding the manufacturing defects of the refrigerator. And we also find that the refrigerator had been working without any defects for more than four years. The defects shown in the refrigerator were rectifiable. In these circumstances the prayer of the complainant/appellant to refund the price of the refrigerator cannot be allowed . Considering the facts and circumstances it can be seen that the order passed by the District Forum directing the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the refrigerator without demanding repair charges is fair and reasonable . Hence there is no ground to modify the 1st part of the order. and Rs.2000/- ordered as costs is also reasonable and hence no modification is necessary.
10. In this case the technicians of the opposite parties had inspected the fridge consequent to the complaint No. 659313, only after filing the complaint. There was inordinate delay in attending the complaint by the service agents of the 1st opposite party and they demanded Rs. 4000/- towards the repairing charges. The said conduct cannot be said to be a fair practice since the warranty was in force for five years. In view of the above discussions we find that there has been deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. Hence they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant, since due to the act of the opposite parties, he suffered too much mental agony and inconvenience .
In the result appeal partly allowed. Upholding the order passed by the District Forum, we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4000/- as compensation, to be paid within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order , failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum till realization.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sh/-
