PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of November 2011
Filed on : 07/01/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 14/2011
Between
Pushpa Kammath, : Complainant
Kalathil house, Ponnarimangalam, (Party-in-person)
Mulavukad, Ernakulam.
And
1. Managing Director, : Opposite parties
HAIRE Appliances (Inda) Pvt. (1st O.P. by adv. Sabu.S(Kallaramoola)
Ltd, B-1/A 14, Amples Building, Amulya Street,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Banerjee road, Cochin-18.)
Estate, New Delhi-160 044.
2. Manager, HAIRE Customer (2nd O.P.absent)
Care, Techwin Electronics
Khadeeja Buildings, Kochi-18.
3. Manager, Choice Home, (3rd O.P. by Adv. R. Prasanth Kumar,
40/6618, Gopalaprabhu road, Shenoi Nivas, M.G. Road, Ernakulam,
M.G. Road, Kochi-35. Kochi-682 035)
(O.P. 3 impleaded as per order in
IA 194/11 dt. 30-03-2011)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
On 07-01-2010 the complainant purchased a refrigerator from the 3rd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 5,650/-. The machine became defunct on
23-03-2010. The complainant contacted the 1st opposite party and as per their direction the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party for its repairs. Even after the repair it did not work properly. Again on 14-10-2010 the complainant had to bring the fridge to the 2nd opposite party for repairs. They took one month to repair the defect. Thereafter on 11-10-2010 the fridge again had the same problem, on 18-10-2010 it was repaired. Subsequently on 10-11-2010 the fridge became defunct for the fifth time. On several occasions the complainant requested the 1st opposite party either to replace it or refund the price, but there was no response. She has to suffer lot of inconveniences and mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties either to replace the fridge or to refund of the price together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party.
The refrigerator was serviced more than one time. The non functioning of the refrigerator was not due to its poor quality. The refrigerator was brought to the service centre only two times at the expense of the opposite party. As and when the complainant reported complaints the opposite parties attended to the same without delay. On 20-11-2010 the refrigerator was taken to the service centre on the complaint that no cooling. The same was checked and serviced on the same day. But the complainant had not turned up to collect the same. Instead of collecting the refrigerator she opted to file the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. Defense of the 3rd opposite party.
As per the direction of the 3rd opposite party only the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to get her fridge repaired. 3rd opposite party had taken all reasonable care to protect the interest of the complainant the consumer. There is no specific relief claimed against the 3rd opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exbts. A1 to A7 were marked on her side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Exbts. B1 was marked on the side of the 3rd opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The points that arose for consideration are.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the refrigerator or refund of the price.
ii. Compensation and costs of the proceedings.
6. Point No. i. Admittedly the complainant purchased a refrigerator from the 3rd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 5,650/- evidenced by Exbt. A1. 12 months comprehensive warranty and 48 months compressor warranty have been provided by the 1st opposite party evident from Ext. A2. Exts. A3 and A4 to go show that the complainant intimated the 1st opposite party regarding the malfunctioning of the refrigerator. Since there was no response the complainant caused Ext. B1 letter highlighting her grievances in which she has categorically stated that the 2nd opposite party not even cared to issue service reports to the complainant. No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the 1st opposite party as to the reasons for the frequent repairs of the machine that too within the warranty period. It is pertinent to note that neither the manufacturer nor the service centre has cared to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contentions. In the absence of any thing to the contrary we are only to hold that the frequent and recurring defects of the refrigerator was caused due to its manufacturing defect. The complaint is substantiated and so the 1st opposite party is liable to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one. No averment or proof is before us to controvert the same.
7. Point No. ii. The complainant claims that she has had to run from pillar to post to get her grievance redressed for her reasons Considering the overall evidence and adduce of the case we can not go against the claim of the complainant that she has been put to irreparable injury and hardships. This Forum considers that a consumer has to be compensated for such a cause. We fix it at Rs. 2,000/-.
8. Accordingly we partly allow this complaint and direct as follows:
i. The 1st opposite party shall replace the refrigerator under dispute with a new one of the same price with fresh warranty according to the choice of the complainant. In that event the complainant shall return the defective refrigerator to the 1st opposite party simultaneously if she is in possession of the same.
ii. The 1st opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for the reasons stated above. The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of tax invoice
A2 : Copy of warranty
A3 Copy of speed net detailed
movement
A4 : Copy of speed net detailed
Movement
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 02/08/2010
A6 : “ “ “
A7 : Copy of proforma for complaints
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 06-12-2010
Depositions :
PW1 : Pushpa Kamath
