CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 162/12
Monday the 27th day of August, 2012
Petitioner : Alexander,
Nirayathu House,
Koothrappally PO,
Karukachal,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite party : Konattu Agencies,
Karukachal PO,
Changanacherry.
2) M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd,
Whirlpool house, Plot No.
Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002
Hariyana.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)
Complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant purchased a fridge of price 9099/- from the 1st opposite party on 29/8/2010. After one week there was a power cut and the tank into which water collected from the fridge was broken and water was spread on the floor. This was informed to the opposite party and they replaced the defective part. After that the bottom part of the fridge corroded and that matter also was informed to the opposite party on 27/8/11. Opposite party replied that the said defect was due to the low quality metallic sheet used for manufacturing. On complaining one person from manufacturer company came and inspected the fridge and took photos. The petitioner averred that the fridge became defective within warranty period but the opposite party demanded repairing charges within warranty period. As the petitioner was not ready to pay repairing charges within warranty period the complaints of the fridge was not cured by the opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of fridge, compensation and litigation cost.
Notice was served to the opposite parties. Second opposite party entered appearance but they failed to file version. Notice to first opposite also served but first opposite party called absent. Hence both the opposite parties were set expartee.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and Exts A1 and A2.
Point No.1
The complainant deposed that the fridge purchased on 29/8/10 is having 5 years warranty. Evidencing the said deposition the complainant produced the copy of warranty card and it is marked as Ext.A2. Evidencing the purchase of the fridge the complainant produced the copy of the retail invoice for Rs.9099/- and it is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant further deposed that the fridge became defective within the warranty period and the said matter was informed to the opposite parties. It was next deposed by the complainant that even though the opposite parties came to his house and inspected the fridge they have not done anything to cure the defect. The complainant alleged the said act of the opposite parties is a clear case of deficiency in service. As the opposite parties chose not to contest, the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner remain unchallenged. On scanning the entire evidence placed on record we also find that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point no.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the petition is to be allowed. The complaint is ordered as follows.
The opposite parties 1 and 2 will jointly and severally replace the defective fridge with a brand new fridge of the same price or will refund the purchase price to the petitioner along with a compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till payment.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the27th day of August., 2012.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C) Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Extr.A1-Copy of the retail invoice
Ext.A2-Copy of the warranty card.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
