Kerala

Idukki

CC/96/2021

Sujith K S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hairange home appiancess - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :16.7.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 20^th  day of  July,  2022

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.96/2021

     Between

Complainant                             :   Sujith K.S., S/o. Surendran Nair,

                                                               Kuttikkattu Hose,      

                                                               Thodupuzha East,

                                                               Idukki.

     (By Adv: K.P. Anu)

        And

Opposite Party                                   :   The Managing Director,

                                                               Hirange Home Appliances,

                                                               Kgees Building, Pala Road,

                                                              Thodupuzha.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Complainant filed this complaint alleging the following against opposite party.

 

1.  He purchased one ‘Godrej RT Eonastra 2858 25HI OXB’ fridge from opposite party on 23.12.2020 for his domestic use.  It was purchased based on the advertisements made by opposite party through visual media and other means about sale and proper after sales service.  So he went to the shop of opposite party and purchased the above item.  Opposite party made him believe that above fridge is having better performance and one year guarantee is offered for fridge and 10 year guarantee for compressor.  But within 2 days of installation, fridge showed cooling complaint and it took more time to achieve cooling.  Thereafter, sound heard  from  the  portion  of  compressor.   On  informing  the  defect  of  fridge,                                                                                                            (cont….2)

-  2  -

 

technician checked the same and arrived at the conclusion of defects.  Accordingly, compressor was changed on 6.4.2021. 

 

2. After changing compressor, again the fridge showed complaints and he informed this to opposite party.  But stating lockdown reasons, opposite party avoided him. Fridge was purchased for keeping food and medicine for his old aged parents and as the purpose is not served, same was damaged.  He could not use the item properly for a singly day.  It created lot of mental agony to him. 

By offering better after sales service, opposite party cheated the complaint.  Action of opposite party is a deficiency in service and opposite party is liable to pay compensation.  He cannot use the fridge eventhough Rs.23,120/-  was paid as price.   Hence he prayed for the following reliefs.

1)  Direct the opposite party to pay the price paid Rs.23,120/- with 12% interest to the complainant. 

2)  Direct the opposite party to pay compensation Rs.15,000/- towards loss of medicine and food of his parents. 

3)  Recover and give him Rs.25,000/- as compensation from opposite party towards deficiency in service of the opposite party.

4)  Costs Rs.25,000/- may be allowed.

 

          Complainant produced copy of purchase invoice of fridge. Notice is served on opposite party.  But he has not filed written version.  On 9.5.2022, complainant and opposite party absent.  Opposite party’s agent appeared.  Directed him to produce authority.  Thereafter no representation from both sides.  Eventhough vakalath is filed on behalf of complaint, counsel is also absent.  Eventhough direction was given to both complaint and opposite party to be present on 17.5.2022, nobody appeared.  Thereafter, on two posting dates also, no representation from both sides. 

 

          Hence the complaint is disposed of based on available evidence on record.

 

          We have examined the averments in the complaint and perused invoice.

         

                Eventhough complainant alleged certain defects in product and claimed reliefs, he is not vigilant in prosecuting the matter.  Eventhough specific direction was given to both sides for their presence in Commission, nobody appeared,  which  shows  the  reluctancy  of  both  sides,  especially,  the  complainant.

                                                                                                          (cont…3)

• 3  -

 

Complainant has not proved any of the allegations regarding defects in product.  It is the duty of him to prove and establish the defects alleged by him.  In the absence of proof of defects, we are not inclined to give any relief to complainant.                                                               

 

          In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complaint failed to prove his allegations raised in the complaint.  Hence we find no merits in the complaint.  Accordingly, complaint is dismissed without costs. 

 

                        Pronounced by this Commission on this the  20^th  day of July, 2022

 

 

                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                            SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                             SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                      Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

 

               Forwarded by Order,

 

 

         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR