By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Complaint in short is as follows:-
On 15/09/2019 complainant purchased a whirlpool fridge 240 litre model 20807 description FP 263D Proton Alfa Steel CL (N) worth Rs 21, 973.88/- from first opposite party. Fourth opposite party is the manufacturer and first opposite party is the dealer of the said refrigerator. When the above said fridge started working, due to the jerking of the fridge the articles including bottles in the fridge are fall down. While purchasing the fridge the 4th opposite party assured that the above said fridge has inbuilt voltage stabilizer and there is no need to spent extra money for the separate stabilizer for the smooth working of the fridge. That is clearly stated in page No.7 of users manual. The first opposite party also promised to complainant the same facilities. Complainant bought the fridge for gifting the same to his son-in-law. The defect of the fridge is informed to opposite party through telephone and through email communication. Thereafter second opposite party checked the defect of the fridge and advised the complainant to purchase additional stabilizer for the smooth functioning. For checking the defect, the second opposite party installed an additional stabilizer in complainant’s fridge. Thereafter opposite party No.2 wanted the price of the additional stabilizer and complainant refused to pay the same. Hence, second opposite party taken the additional stabilizer installed by him. On 21/12/2019 complainant purchased a new stabilizer worth Rs.1079.41/-. Thereafter complainant contacted through telephone and by mail to opposite parties so many times but no reply received yet. This is a deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties. Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side opposite parties, complainant had lost the confidence on the products of Whirlpool Company. The opposite parties tried to believe the complainant that the above fridge have inbuilt stabilizer and there is no need to spent extra money for stabiliser for the smooth working of the fridge. Hence this complaint.
2. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a full refund of Rs. 21,973.88/- the cost of the refrigerator to him or replacement of the refrigerator , Rs. 1,079.41/- as compensation the amount he had spent for purchasing additional stabilizer, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and
notice served on them and opposite party No.1 appeared before the Commission and filed version. Opposite party No.2, 3 and 4 did not appear before the Commission, hence they set exparte.
4. In their version, opposite party No1 stated that they are conducting a canteen at Malappuram Police Camp where they are selling so many consumer products and electronics items. But they denied all the allegations levelled against them by the complainant. They again stated that the executives of each company were there at their canteen and the said executives explain the details about the products they are selling to customers. The above executives are clearing the doubts of customers about the products and they gave details about the product to customers. They again stated that they have no idea about the electronics items and there is no need for them to canvas the customers for selling the products. They are selling only the branded electronics items through their canteen. If any damage caused to the products it is the duty of the company to settle the matter. They are not liable hence complaint may be dismissed.
5. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant. Ext. A2 is the copy of the Usage manual, Ext.A3 is the photocopy of bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant while purchasing the stabilizer and some other products. Ext.A4 is the warranty card of stabilizer. Thereafter opposite party No.1 filed affidavit but no documents filed.
6. Heard complainant and opposite party No.1. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
If so, reliefs and cost
7. Point No.1 and 2:-
Case of the complainant is that the refrigerator he purchased on 15/09/2019
became defective and due to the jerking of the fridge the articles including the bottles kept in the fridge were fell down. While purchasing the fridge, opposite parties assured that the above fridge has inbuilt voltage stabilizer. Hence there is no need to spent extra money for the separate stabilizer. Due to the voltage fluctuations, complainant bought another stabilizer. But opposite party No.2 to 4 were not appeared before the Commission, hence they set exparte. Opposite party No.1 stated that they are not responsible for any defects of the electronic materials sold by them. They again stated that the companies of the electronic items had appointed their executives in opposite party No.1 canteen and that executives will explain the details of each product to the customers. So opposite party No.1 have no knowledge about the products and there is no practice to canvas the customers.
8. Perused complaint, version, affidavit and documents of both parties. As per Ext.A1 document it is clear that complainant had purchased the refrigerator worth Rs.21,973.88/- from opposite party No.1 on 15/09/2019. As per Ext. A3 it is clear that he had purchased a stabilizer worth Rs 1079.41/- from opposite party No.1 on 21/12/2019. As per Ext. A2 the user’s manual page No.7, it is clearly stated that the above said refrigerator had stabilizer free operation. They again stated that the stabilizer free operation of whirlpool refrigerator ensures that you do not have to spend extra money in buying a separate stabilizer for your refrigerator. In page No.17 of that document also ensures 10 years warranty for the above refrigerator. From Ext. A4, the warranty card of the stabilizer which shows that complainant had purchased a stabilizer on 21/12/2019 and it had warranty. Opposite party No.1 did not produce any documents to prove their case.
9. As per Ext.A2, it is clear that the above said fridge carries inbuilt stabilizer . In Ext.A2 page No.7 they stated that ‘’stabilizer free operation”. They again stated that the stabilizer free operation of whirlpool refrigerator ensures that you do not have to spend extra money in buying a separate stabilizer for your refrigerator. In the second point, they noted that it can operate at voltages as low as 160 V and as high as 260 V at room temperature. From the above points we are on the opinion that there is no need for a stabilizer in this type of fridges. From that document itself it is clear that the above refrigerator had 10 (9+1) year warranty. As per complaint, complainant’s refrigerator had problems from the beginning. They stated that, when the above said fridge had started working, occasionally due to the jerking of the fridge, the articles including bottles kept in the fridge were fell down which affect the complainant.
10. Opposite party No.1 in their version and affidavit stated that, they are conducting a canteen at Malappuram Police Camp and they are selling so many consumer products and electronic items. They again stated that the executives of each company of electronic items were stand there at their canteen and the said executives will explain the details about the products they are selling to customers. Those executives are clearing the doubts of customers regarding the product. Moreover they have no idea about the electronic items and there is no need to canvas the customers for selling the products. It is the duty of company to settle the matter.
11. From the above statements of opposite party No.1, we are also have the same opinion. Opposite party No.1 is not canvassing the customers and they clearly stated that , the executives of each company were detailing about the products. They have no connection with the customers. Complainant did not produce documents to show that opposite party No.1 compelled them to purchase the product. Complainant has no case that opposite party No.1 compelled them to purchase the whirlpool product. Complainant just mentioned in the complaint and affidavit that 4–¡« F-Y¦-J-È¢i¡-i J-Ø-c¢-i¤-¨T l¡-L®a¡-c ±d-J¡-j« ©h¸-T¢ ±e¢-V®-Q¢c® inbuilt voltage stabilizer D-¨Ù¼¤« B-i-Y¢-c¡v ©l¨s stabilizer ¨l-i®-©´-Ù-Y¢-¨¿-¼¤-h¡X-® 1–¡«F-Y¦-J-È¢ ±e¢-V®Q® l¡-¹¢-i o-hi« d-j¡-Y¢-´¡j-¨c ds-º® l¢-m§-o¢-¸¢-µ¢-¶¤-¾Y®. But no documents to prove that opposite party No.1, the manager of police canteen directly approached them and informed them that the fridge had inbuilt voltage stabilizer. So the contention against opposite party No1 is not believable. Opposite party No.1 clearly stated in their version and affidavit that , he is the assistant Commandant of Malabar Special Police Force and this is an additional work as manager of police canteen for him. Hence he is not in a position to work throughout the day in the police canteen. Hence the executives of the product will explain the details about the electronic items to complainant and other consumers. He again stated that he has no knowledge about the electronic products and he has no direct intervention with the canteen. From the above facts submitted by opposite party No.1, we are on the opinion that opposite party No.1 has no direct connection with the products sold at their canteen. Complainant never denied this statement of opposite party No.1 stated in their version and affidavit about the executives of each product explaining the product details to the complainant and other customers. Complainant never said that there is no such product executives in the canteen. Moreover in the complaint or affidavit of complainant, they never stated that they had informed the jerking of the fridge to opposite party No.1.
12. Complainant had not appointed an expert commissioner to prove the actual defect of the product. He just mentioned that occasionally there is jerking, when the above fridge started working and occasionally due to the jerking of the fridge the articles inside the fridge fell down. But no expert opinion is there. We have no idea what actual damage happened to the fridge. But from the documents it is clear that after three months of the purchase of the fridge, complainant again purchased a stabilizer for the smooth working of the fridge. So we came to a conclusion that there is some jerking problem to the fridge due to voltage fluctuation. But the extent of the damage caused to the fridge due to the jerking is not measurable. It is seen that the above said defect is a manufacturing defect. Moreover complainant did not produce any document to prove that whether the fridge is serviced or not. Opposite party No.2 is the service centre and complainant stated in his complaint and affidavit that, opposite party No.2 came to his son-in–law’s house and inspected the fridge and he directed the complainant to install an additional stabilizer for the smooth working of the fridge. But complainant did not produce documents to prove that. But as per Ext.A3, it is clear that complainant purchased another stabilizer after three months of the purchase of the refrigerator.
13 The costly fridge had some defects like jerking from the beginning itself and complainant informed the defects to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 will surely inform the defects and the complaint of complainant to opposite party No.3 and 4. Only after receiving the permission from opposite party No.4, opposite party No.2 can continue to do the repair work. In this case all the opposite parties except opposite party No.1 were not present before the Commission to submit their version against the complainant’s submissions. But after receiving notice they did not come to commission and not filed affidavit and documents. Hence they set exparte. A defect from the beginning itself is a manufacturing defect. It is the duty of opposite party No.4 to interfere and to cure the manufacturing defect of the fridge. It is their duty to direct opposite party No.2 to rectify the defect of the refrigerator and they must direct opposite party No.3 to redress the grievance of complainant through proper channel. Opposite party No.2 to 4 were not bothered about the grievance of complainant and they did not take any steps to rectify the defect of the fridge which is a manufacturing defect. Moreover the defect of the fridge were caused during the warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party No.2 to 4. From the documents, it is clear that the fridge had inbuilt stabilizer as offered by opposite party No.4. But the fridge had jerking due to voltage fluctuations. So complainant had purchased another stabilizer for the smooth functioning of the fridge. It is a cheating from the side of the manufacturer of the fridge. Giving false promises will amounts to cheating and which leads to an unfair trade practice. From the documents it is clear that, opposite party No.4 offered inbuilt stabilizer for the above brand of refrigerator. But from the beginning of its working it had problems and opposite party No.2 to 4 did not rectify the defects of the refrigerator having 10 years warranty. From the documents it is seen that it is a manufacturing defects. So opposite party No.2, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. There is clear deficiency in service from their side. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.2 to 4 as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party No.2 to 4 is deficient in service.
14. We allow this complaint as follows:-
The opposite party No.4 is directed to refund Rs.21,973.88/-( Twenty one thousand nine hundred and seventy three rupees and eighty eight paisa only) the cost of the refrigerator and Rs. 1,079.41/-(One thousand and seventy nine rupees and fourty one paisa only) the cost of the stabilizer to the complainant, and complainant is directed to returned the refrigerator to opposite parties after payment made by them and opposite party No.2 to 4 are directed to take the refrigerator from complainant’s son-in-law’s house .
The opposite party No.2 to 4 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 to 4 and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
The opposite party No.2 to 4 also directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.2 to 4 are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 20th day of March, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1 : Photocopy of bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant.
Ext. A2 : Copy of the Usage manual,
Ext.A3 : Photocopy of bill given by opposite party No.1 to complainant while
purchasing the stabilizer and some other products.
Ext.A4 : Warranty card of stabilizer given by opposite party to complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
CPR
