CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 11/2012
Thursday, the 31st day of May , 2012.
Petitioner : Mahin,
Vettukadu House,
Nadackal P.O
Erattupetta.
(By Adv. Avaneesh V.N)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) TEKCARE India Ltd.,
reptd by its Managing Director,
15 KM Stone, Aurangabad,
Paithan Road Chitegaon Village
Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad-
431105, Maharashtra.
2) Videocon Industry Ltd.,]
reptd. by its Managing Director
14 KM Stone, Aurangabad
Paithan Road Chitegaon,
Aurangabad -431105.
3) The Proprietor,
Kallavaekal Agency,
Jobees Complex,
Kattakkayam Road,
Pala.
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 10..1..2012 is as follows:
He had purchased a fridge having brand name kelvinator for Rs. 13,750/- on 4..2..2001 from the 3rd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and marketed through 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase 1st opposite party agreed warranty for 1 year for the fridge and continuing warranty to the compressor from the date of purchase. After
-2-
purchase, from the very beginning the Fridge was not working properly. There is no effective cooling in the fridge. The Complainant intimated the fact to the 3rd opposite party, 3rd opposite party intimated the fact to the service centre of the 1st opposite party. On intimation service personal came and inspected the fridge. They told the complainant that there is no defects to the fridge. But after that the cooling problem exists in regular intervals. The service person found leak happened in the fridge. So, and subsequently the door was replaced. But even after that problems occurred in regular intervals and now the fridge is in a deadly condition. Altogether about 20 times the problem occurred. Even though the complainant intimated the facts to the opposite parties directly and through phone, there is no further response from them. Actually the fridge is having manufacturing defects. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties
are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complainant.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty opposite party (company) is providing one year replacement warranty for parts and after one year additional four year warranty for compressor unit. As per the complaint raised by the complainant in relation to the effective cooling of the fridge an authorised service technician of the company inspected the fridge and replaced the door of the fridge. At the relevant time of inspection opposite parties service
-3-
expert advised the complainant not to put heavy materials in the bottle space provided in the door for cooling. The door was replaced not due to any leak but due to low cooling which was due to heavy load inserted in the bottle space attached to the door. There after the fridge was functioning smoothly. The complainant is running a bakery and cool bar in the “name” Tushar Bakery and Cool Bar at Nadakkal Junction, Erattupetta town. The fridge was used in this shop for commercial purposes. At the time of inspection it was noticed by the service expert that large number of soft drinks bottles were kept in the bottle rack attached to the door of the fridge which cause hanging of the door. Moreover, in the wire-shelf also large numbers of soft drinks bottles were found. The warranty shall ceased/cancelled if the set is used for any type of commercial purpose. Hence in the above circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Even after repeated advice and warning the complainant is using the fridge for commercial purpose by stocking heavy loads of soft drinks bottles and like materials. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
After filed the version of the opposite parties. They did not turned up for further proceedings. Hence the opposite parties set exparte. The complainant filed ex-parte proof affidavit and one document which is marked as exhibit A1. The sworn proof affidavit and the document on the side of the complainant is un-challenged by the opposite parties. Hence we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complaint. So, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
-4-
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows:
We direct the opposite parties to replace the defective fridge as the same capacity fridge with brand new one without
any defects to the complainant or to refund the price of the fridge as per Ext. A1 bill. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1500/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents produced by complainant.
Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 7..2..2011.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
