DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.157/2006

Abraham.P.V,

S/o.K.E.Varghese,

Nidhidale, Near Railway Gate,

Kadukkamkunnam Post,

Akathethara, Palakkad.

(By Adv.Tony Jose.K) - Complainant

Vs

1. Homfit

Represented by its Proprietress,

Homfit Jn., Olavakkode,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.P.R.Hariharan)

2. Haier Appliances (India) P Limited,

B-1/A-14, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,

New Delhi 110044.

(By Adv.M.Udayasankar) - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

The case of the complainant in brief:

Complainant purchased a refrigerator having company brand name Haier with 200 ltrs capacity after making a payment of Rs.9990 from the 1^st opposite party on 12/06/2006. It carries a warranty of 1½ years for the compressor. The grievance of the complainant is that on the very next day of purchase itself, the inner bulb of the refrigerator got fused and within a period of 15 days, the colour of the handle started fading away. Refrigerator is not working in a smooth manner and is making a lot of noise. Complainant several times contacted the 1^st opposite party and has requested to rectify the above defects. Complainant submits that instead of carrying out repair, 1^st opposite party behaved in a very callous manner. Complainant prays for the replacement of the refrigerator together with a compensation of Rs.5,000.

2. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version contending the following. 1^st opposite party admits the purchase of the refrigerator but denies the say of the complainant that it was defective. Since parts like bulb are not covered under warranty it was replaced at the expense of the complainant.

3. 2^nd opposite party also denies the statement of the complainant that the fridge became shabby and it is not working in a smooth manner. There was a complaint on 14/07/2006 regarding the handle which was attended by a Service Engineer of 2^nd opposite party on the same day itself. At that time fridge was found to be working in a smooth fashion. 2^nd opposite party was ready to change the handle with a new one on the availability of the same. Further being a part made out of plastic, door handle is also not covered under the warranty condition. There is no defect for any major parts covered by the warranty and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

4. The evidence adduced consists of the chief affidavits on the side of both parties. Ext.A1 marked on the side of the complainant. Expert Commissioner was appointed to note the defects in the refrigerator and filed report. Report is marked as Ext.C1.

5. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? and

2. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?

6. Issues 1 & 2: The definite case of the complainant is that his fridge was not working properly and is making a lot of noise. Further the bulb got fused which was changed at the expense of complainant and the colour of the handle faded away giving a shabby look to the refrigerator.

7. The purchase of the refrigerator was admitted by the opposite parties. 2^nd opposite party was always ready to rectify the defect in the handle of the refrigerator, even though it does not form part of the warranty conditions. Commissioner has filed report after examining the refrigerator. According to Ext.C1 other than minor defects, commissioner has not noted any major defects in the refrigerator. Hence we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. In the result, complaint dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.

9. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of June, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Invoice No.01553 dt.12/06/2006 for Rs.9990.00

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Commissioner's report marked as Ext.C1

Costs (Not allowed)