By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V, MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 12/04/2018, the complainant had purchased an inbuilt refrigerator (Model GR300NF) of the first opposite party and through its dealership of the second opposite party and it was registered for installation on 20/06/2018. After few days of use, the complainant had noticed unusual level of moisture condensation and water dripping on the side walls of the refrigerator cabinet and same was reported with first opposite party on 09/08/2018. But the first opposite a party did not turn up pacifying it as result of climate change. It is also alleged by the complainant that there was no airtight to the door of refrigerator. It is averred that even though repeated requests for rectification work was made, the service men of opposite party claimed that the door of the refrigerator was perfectly all right. It is alleged that from the very beginning itself the inner side of the door air sealant was looking damaged. It is further alleged that door hinges were rusty and moisture was dripping downwards to the freezer door and then to the floor resulting dirty and unsanitary inside the refrigerator and kitchen. The first opposite party did not take any steps to solve the problem and the refrigerator was stopped working in the month of October 2021. Due to unhygienic condition caused by defect of the refrigerator, the complainant was not able to use his kitchen properly. After registering another complaint on 21/10/2021 the servicemen of the first opposite party had blamed door hinges for the defective function of refrigerator. Finally, the first opposite party replaced door hinges, but the refrigerator did not function normally. The product was beeping and turned off automatically. There was no proper inspection from the side of the first opposite party. Even without a making an inspection, the first opposite party proposed to replace the board fitted inside and demanded to make payment for the same. But the complainant was reluctant to pay such huge amount as the opposite party was solely responsible for the defect of refrigerator. On 13/12/2021, the first opposite party approached the complainant and refrigerator was removed from the cabinet intended to replace the board. Then it is also found that water was overflowing from the container on top of the compressor. According to the complainant, the compressor was not working properly causing water not to get evaporated resulting over flow in to the floor. The first opposite party even directed to replace second board without proper examination. The opposite party demanded around Rs. 40,000/- for replacement of door hinges and boards. It is alleged by the complainant that, the opposite party has failed to find out the defect of the refrigerator. It is also found by the complainant that, the refrigerator cabinet was corroded and damaged at the bottom front and side due to long term excessive condensation of leakage from the door. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect to the refrigerator and same has caused unexplainable inconvenience and embarrassment to the complainant. So the complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 95,192/- from the first opposite party as the price of the refrigerator. The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the damages caused to the modular kitchen and the floor due to the water leakage from refrigerator. The complainant claimed Rs.1,000/- per day as compensation for sufferings of unexplainable inconvenience caused from 21/10/2021 until the issue is resolved. The complainant claimed cost of the proceedings also.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have appeared and filed version separately before the Commission.
3. The maintainability of the complaint is challenged in the version of the first opposite party. It is stated by the first opposite party that the subject product was sold on 12/04/2018 through second opposite party. It is contended that the complainant had convinced terms and conditions of warranty before the purchase of refrigerator. The product was warranted by the first opposite party to be free from defects in materials and workmanship for a period of 12 months from the date of installation. So the period of warranty is expired. It is stated that the complainant did not inform any complaint with regard to defect of refrigerator as alleged in the complaint. According to the opposite party, the compliant is barred by limitation. The opposite party has denied allegations of deficiency in service. The opposite party has contented that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as prayed in the complaint.
4. The second opposite party contented in the version that, the complaint is not maintainable and devoid of merits. There are no allegations raised against the second opposite party in the complaint. At the time of selling the product, the second opposite party did not make any modification to the subject product and not given any express warranty to the product. It is stated that the subject product was distributed by the first opposite party and did not commit any kind of deficiency in service towards the complainant. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant and the opposite parties have filed affidavits and documents. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A6 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of tax invoice bill dated 12/04/2018 showing the purchase of subject refrigerator from the second opposite party. Ext.A2 document is the second page of tax invoice bill dated 12/04/2018 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 document is the copy of email of product registration and installation dated 20/06/2018 showing the commencing date of warranty. Ext.A4 documents are the copies of photographs of the refrigerator. Ext.A5 documents are the CD of the photographs shown in Ext.A4 document. Ext.A6 series documents are the copies of complaint registered through email dated 09/08/2018, 10/06/2019 and 21/10/2021. The first opposite party has produced copy of warranty details and it is marked as Ext.B1 document.
6. The complainant has filed an application numbered as IA 791/2022 to appoint an expert commissioner to examine the subject refrigerator and to make a report with that regard. The Commission allowed the application and appointed an expert commissioner. Accordingly, the commissioner has examined the refrigerator and filed a report before the Commission and it is marked as Ext.C2 document. But the first opposite party challenged the commission report and filed another application numbered as IA 231/2023. The Commission allowed the application and appointed another expert commissioner to examine the subject refrigerator. Consequently, the expert commissioner filed a report before the Commission and it is marked as Ext. C1 document.
7. Heard both sides in detail. Gone through entire documents and affidavits thoroughly. The Commission considered two points for its consideration:-
- Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
- Relief and cost.
8. Point No.(i) and (ii):-
The complainant has alleged manufacturing defects to the refrigerator distributed by first opposite party through the second opposite party. The complainant has produced Ext. A1 and Ext. A2 documents to prove the purchase of refrigerator. The opposite parties have admitted purchase of the subject refrigerator as stated by the complainant. According to the complainant, the refrigerator was installed on 20/06/2018 and to prove his pleading, the complainant has produced Ext. A3 document. It is alleged by the complainant that subject product has suffered manufacturing defects. It is argued that, the refrigerator was halted its function and there was no use of it. It is argued by the complainant that, there was high level of moisture condensation and water dripping on the side walls of the refrigerator cabinet. It is further argued that dripping was found along the sides of top door and door could not be properly closed as it lacked airtight. Moreover the door hinges were rusty. There was no functioning since the month of October 2021. It is alleged that due to the defect of the refrigerator, it became dirty and unhygienic. Another defects found by the complainant was that water was overflowing from the container installed top of the compressor and compressor was also not working properly. The complainant has produced photographs of the refrigerator and it is marked as Ext. A4 series (12 photographs).
9. It is the case of the complainant that the first opposite party did not take any steps to rectify the defect of the refrigerator. As a result Modular kitchen was damaged. Moreover the first opposite party failed to fix the defect and demanded a huge amount under the manoeuvre of replacement of boards.
10. On the contrary, the first opposite party has denied allegations of manufacturing defects. According to the first opposite party, no complaint raised from the side of the complainant with regard to defect of the refrigerator. The first opposite party has produced warranty card and marked as Ext. B1 document. It is the case of the first opposite party that the subject product covered warranty of 12 months only. The Commission consider that the use of a produce cannot be limited to the period of warranty. The complainant has got every right to use the product beyond warranty period without any kind of hindrances. In this case the complainant has made complaint of defects to the product from the very beginning of its use.
11. In the evaluation of evidence, it can be seen that the complainant had repeatedly contacted the first opposite party for rectification of defect as alleged in the complaint. It is consistently argued by the complainant that the opposite party did not take any steps for rectification work of the refrigerator. Ext. A6 series documents are the copies of complaints registered by the complainant with the first opposite party. Ext.A6 series documents would reveals that right from the beginning the subject refrigerator suffered from defects. It is averred by the complainant that the product had halted its function in the month of October 2021 itself. Ext. C2 document would reveal that door of the refrigerator was defective one. Due to the defects of the refrigerator heavy water condensation was formed and dripping was also caused. Moreover many parts of the refrigerator was rusted affecting the function of refrigerator. The Commission also gone through objection filed by the first opposite party to Ext.C2 report. It is stated in the objection that the expert commissioner was not qualified and examination of subject refrigerator was lasted only for 5 minutes. According to the first opposite party, in order to detect the defect of refrigerator, the functioning of the refrigerator should be lasted for 72 hours. It is also stated in the objection that fungus was resulted due to stoppage of use of refrigerator by the complainant. On the basis of application filed by the first opposite party another expert commissioner was appointed and a report was submitted before the Commission and it is marked as Ext. C1 document. In Ext. C1 document , it is stated that two doors of the refrigerator have been examined and found intact and cooling was not coming outside of the refrigerator. The refrigerator was found unhygienic and fungus was also found in the surrounding areas. It is also stated in Ext. C1 document that the installation of the refrigerator was damaged by rat resulting as unrectifiable. The expert commissioner also filed photographs of the refrigerator along with Ext.C1 document. Going through Ext.C1 document it can be found that report was prepared on 26/06/2023. It is the case of the complainant that in the month of October 2021 itself the functioning of the refrigerator was stopped due to defects of the product. The contention of the first opposite party is that the refrigerator has to be examined for a continuous time of 72 hours to find out its defects. But Ext.C1 document does not show that the refrigerator had been undergone examination for duration of 72 hours. The photographs produced along with Ext.C1 document would show that refrigerator was not in a working condition at the time of examination by the expert commissioner as there were no articles found in it.
12. The Commission find that the complainant has spent a huge amount to purchase the subject refrigerator from the first opposite party. It is pertinent to note that it became defective at the very beginning of its use. The evidence adduced by the complainant also reveals that the subject refrigerator has suffered defects. The opposite party did not take any steps to rectify the defect of the refrigerator even though the complainant had contacted on several occasions. So the Commission find that the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant and the product of the first opposite party is suffered from manufacturing defects and the first opposite party is liable to compensate for the same.
13. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to show the quantum of damage affected to the modular kitchen of the complainant due to the use of defective refrigerator. So the Commission cannot make any order in that regard. The Commission find that there is no allegation of deficiency in service against the second opposite party. So the second opposite party is exonerated from the liability. In the light of the above discussion, the Commission find that the complainant has proved allegations of deficiency in service against the first opposite party and hence complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
- The first opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 95,192 /-(Rupees Ninety five thousand and one hundred and ninety two only) to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of its installation i.e, on 20/06/2018 onwards till the date of this order.
- The first opposite party shall take back the refrigerator from the residence of the complainant after bearing entire cost for its packing and transportation after giving two days notice prior to its repossession.
- The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship resulted due to the act of deficiency in service.
- The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings
The first opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of the order till realization.
Dated this 27th day of November, 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A6
Ext.A1: Document is the copy of tax invoice bill dated 12/04/2018 showing the
purchase of subject refrigerator from the second opposite party.
Ext.A2 : Document is the second page of tax invoice bill dated 12/04/2018 issued by
the second opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A3 : Document is the copy of email of product registration and installation dated
20/06/2018 showing the commencing date of warranty.
Ext.A4 : Documents are the copies of photographs of the refrigerator.
Ext.A5 : Documents are the CD of the photographs shown in Ext.A4 document.
Ext.A6: Series documents are the copies of complaint registered through email dated
09/08/2018, 10/06/2019 and 21/10/2021.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1
Ext.B1 : Copy of warranty details.
Ext.C1 : Report of Expert Commissioner.
Ext.C2 : Report of Expert Commissioner.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
