THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.89/2009 Wednesday, the 21st day of April, 2010 Petitioner : Vijayakumar G. Quarters No. F-134, Malankara Quarters, Muttambalam P.O Kottayam. (By Adv. Ajithan Nampoothiri) Opposite parties : 1) The Managing Partner, Logos Enterprises, Sasthri Road, Logos Junction, Kottayam. (By Adv. Sunny George) 2) The Branch Manager Whirlpool of India Ltd. CC 39/3521, M.G Road, Revipuram, Kochin. (By M/s. KNB Nair Associates) O R D E R Smt. Bindu M. Thomas, Member. The crux of the petitioner’s case is as follows: The petitioner purchased a refrigerator of Model 220 and serial No. 071600018 from the first opposite party for Rs. 16,500/- on 16..4..2008. Within three months of purchase, the refrigerator became rusty and its use became difficult. The petitioner alleged that the rusting of the refrigerator is due to its manufacturing defect. The petitioner complained first to the first opposite party and then to the second opposite party but those complaints were in vain. The petitioner further alleged that the said refrigerator is not suitable for effective use and also rusty. According to the petitioner, -2- the act of opposite party in supplying a law quality refrigerator having manufacturing defects and not doing proper after sale service is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the petitioner filed this petition praying to direct the opposite party to replace the refrigerator or to refund the purchase price along with a compensation of Rs. 5000/-, money spent for approaching first and second opposite parties Rs. 500/- and litigation cost. First and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version separately . The main contentions in the first opposite party’s version are listed below: i) When the customer reported the defect of the machine in July 2008, we have directed him to the service dealer Ms-Hi-tech Engineers and customer was dealing directly with the Service Dealer. ii) As the first opposite party was laid up due to Heart Attack and an open heart surgery, and there fore the shop was closed for ever. Hence the first opposite party prayed to exempt them from this case. The second opposite party filed version with the following important contentions: i) The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. ii) There is no manufacturing defect to the refrigerator. The rusting of the refrigerator can be due to improper handling of the machine. There is no warranty for painting. The opposite party offered replacement of the refrigerator with a new one as a gesture of good will but the complainant refused it stating that a sticker which was on his refrigerator is not seen in -3- the refrigerator offered to be replaced. This opposite party is still prepared to replace the refrigerator. Hence the second opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint as it is devoid of merits. Point No. 1 The petitioner produced invoice Dtd: 16..4..2008 and it is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it is seen that the purchase price of the said refrigerator is Rs. 16,500/-. The copy of the letter issued by the first opposite party to the second opposite party Dtd: 4..12..2008 is produced and marked as Ext. A3. On perusing Ext. A3 it is understood that the first opposite party had reported about the complaints of the petitioner’s refrigerator to the second opposite party eight months prior to the Ext. A3 letter. Through Ext. A3 letter the first opposite party requested the second opposite party to redress the petitioner’s grievances. From Ext. A3, it is clear that the said refrigerator developed complaints within a short span of its purchase. The original warranty card is produced and marked as Ext. A2. As per Ext. A2 a comprehensive warranty of 1 year is offered to the refrigerator. After perusing the exhibits . it is found that the complaints of the refrigerator occurred within the warranty period. In the second opposite party’s version they expressed their readiness to replace the refrigerator. This willingness for replacement is a clear proof of second opposite party’s admission of defects of the fridge. The second opposite party in their version stated that they brought the new refrigerator to the complainant’s residence but he refused to receive it. But nothing is placed on re cord to prove the above said statement. -4- If the second opposite party had taken steps to redress the complainant’s grievances at the right time this unnecessary litigation would not have happened. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner approached the dealer and the manufacturer for redressing the problems with the refrigerator within the warranty period of one year. Even though the first opposite party recommended to the 2nd opposite party to resolve the problems encountered by the petitioner, the second opposite party failed to do anything in this regard. So, we hold the second opposite party deficient in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1, the petition is allowed. The second opposite party is ordered to replace the defective refrigerator with a defect free brand new refrigerator of price Rs. 16,500/- or refund the purchase price of Rs. 16,500/- to the petitioner. The second opposite party is also ordered to give Rs. 2,500/- as compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the petitioner along with a litigation cost of Rs. 1,500/- to the petitioner. The second opposite party can take back the defective refrigerator at the time of replacement. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of its copy failing which the above mentioned sums will carry interest @ 9% p.a till realization. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member. Sd/- -5- APPENDIX Documents of the Petitioner: Ext. A1: The original Tax invoice Dtd: 6..4..2008 Ext. A2: Original user’s manual & warranty card Ext. A3: Copy of letter by the 1st opposite party to the second opposite party Dtd: 4..12..2008. Documents of the Opposite party: Nil. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 5 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
