DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  14^th   day of November 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                 Date of filing:  09/05/2017

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

   (C.C.No.77/2017)

Ayappan,
S/o Lakshmi Amma,

Vaishnavam,

Thekkegramam  (PO) ,

Chittur, Palakkad,                              

678 103.                                                       -        Complainant

(By party in person)

 V/s

1.  The Manager,

     B-Mart,                                                   -        Opposite parties

     Stadium Bye pass Road,

     Palakkad, 678 001.

     (Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan & A.K.Philip)

2.  Kapil Agarwal,

     Vice President Marketing,

     Whirlpool India Ltd,

     Corporate Office,

     Plot No.40, Sector 44,

     Gurgaon, 122 002.

O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member,

           In connection with the complainant daughter’s marriage the complainant had purchased one whirlpool one tonne AC from the 1^st opposite party and the same was installed in his house on 24.04.2017.  But it did not function properly.  On the next day he came to the 1^st opposite party’s shop and complained.  Two technicians came and examined and could not rectify the defects.  In the subsequent days two technicians again visited the complainant’s house but did not correct the defects.  The complainant alleges that the technicians who visited on 08.05.2017 informed that it is difficult to rectify the defective AC and advised to get the same exchanged.  Hence he had approached before the Forum seeking an order to get his AC replaced and also to grant compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him. 

Notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance.  1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed their respective version.  2^nd opposite party failed to appear before the Forum inspite of accepting notice.  Hence they were called absent and set ex-parte. 

1^st opposite party contended that one whirlpool AC of 1 tonne capacity was sold to the complainant and on receiving complaints with regard to its functioning as a responsible dealer, they communicated the complaint to the manufacturer promptly and the company had replaced the AC on 20^th May 2017 i.e after the filing of this complaint.  The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer of whirlpool AC and there was no deficiency of service on their part.  They had acted very faithfully and sincerely and had helped the complainant in all possible manner to get the AC installed and replaced on receiving the complaint as early as possible.  Hence the complaint had to be dismissed with cost exonerating the 1^st opposite party. 

Complainant and opposite party filed their respective chief affidavit.  Ext.A1 series and A2 was marked from the side of the complainant.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arises for consideration are.

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

2.If so what are the relief and cost?

Issues No.1 & 2

We have perused the affidavit as well as documents produced before the Forum.  The complainant had also admitted in the chief affidavit that the opposite parties have substituted the AC.  He had also admitted that the 1^st opposite party contacted the manufacturer.  His only grievances was that, they had replaced it by taking a long period of time.  He had alleged that he had purchased the AC when the environmental heat was above 39⁰ C and they have substituted the AC only after the monsoon began.  He had also submitted that the opposite parties have not acted faithfully and they were very insincere and dishonest.  It is true that, the opposite party had replaced the AC, only after filing of this complaint.  The complainant had purchased the AC on 23.04.2017 and the defect was promptly attended by the 1^st opposite party technician from 25.04.2017 onwards.  Only on 08.05.2017 the mechanic could detect that the AC is not repairable and had to be substituted.  It is seen that they had immediately contacted the manufacturer and the AC was replaced on 20.05.2017.  The complainant had filed the complaint on 09.05.2017 which was immediately on the next day of detecting the complaint.  He had not even waited for the response of the opposite parties before filing of this complaint.  Immediately after filing of the complaint the 1^st opposite party had replaced the AC on 20^th May 2017 itself.  Hence it cannot be considered as a long period and we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 

In view of the above discussions, we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is dismissed without cost. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 14^th  day of November 2017.

                                                                                              Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President 

                          Sd/-     

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                   Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 series -   Trip sheet for contract carriage (7 No’s)

Ext.A2                    –   Photo copy of Discharge Bill issued by Malabar Hospital, Palakkad

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost   

          Nil